Universal basic income: Why not?

[WALKYRIA]

I'm not an economist(far from that, heck, I hate everything that is related with money), but It seem obvious to me that capitalism is directly and indirectly responsible of a lot of pains in this world. Things could be exponentially improved if people had - if not a basic income- their basic needs automatically met(health, eat, drink, shelter, right to education). What I don't understand is why do we make people pay for things that they shouldn't pay for.
It strikes me as logical that a modern or advanced society should have a basic income; me not being an economics genius(obviously), I don't understand exactly why not?

Sure it might make people uncompetitive/lazy... so what, it's their choice and being competitive shouldn't be an imperative but rather a liberal choice. At the same time competitiveness should not be economical, but rather intellectual, athletics, artistic,..Etc not economical.
I get that capitalism creates a society of overly eager, succes-oriented, competition addicted monsters citizens and that overall it's good for the growth yadi yada... but why impose the rules of capitalism universally to people who don't necessarily want it( basically the lazy people who want to leave the easy, relaxed life) ... not only a basic income, but I believe that everyone should have somewhere to sleep, something to eat and drink..etc just the base.

Now what are the pros/ cons of such basic income?What does the detractors of such idea think?

 

[Inquisitor]

*takes break from math homework*

Capitalism is not the problem. Humans have been buying/selling/bartering/trading for thousands of years. I believe 8000 years ago in Afghanistan is the first record of a kind of money. The problem is people pulling up the ladder once they've reached the top by rigging the laws/rules of the game to make competition less free. Some examples are zoning laws, licensing, unions, permits, etc. There's no need for a UBI w/o these.

People love to talk about greed, but don't understand its most insidious forms. Profit is great. Blocking market access is not. But I get the impression most associate the word with the former rather than the latter.

Bottom line though: If you're consuming anything made/provided by others, then unless you're completely crippled/mentally handicapped, you have an obligation to produce as well. Parasites should be shamed. A UBI is a fine idea if it replaces the current welfare system, but that's not what's being proposed. They want to stack it on top of everything we already have, so no thanks.

 

[redbaron]

I'm for it. It'd be nice to have basic income plus bonuses for doing extra. I'd still work for sanity reasons and likely pick up a skilled trade because I know I'm not, "locked in". At the moment I'm reluctant to pick up highly technical skills or knowledge since then I'm invested in that pathway - and if I don't like it then it's either been a waste of time or I do work I dislike just to make it worth the time and effort spent studying/practicing.

With a UBI I could dabble in stuff until I find what I like. My case probably isn't the same for all but it's at least one example where it's a win-win for system and individual.

I think the danger is having people just freeload and not look to return something. The idea itself is really good, so long as people make an effort to use their economical freedom to give return to society the way they like to.

 

[ummidk]

Why are these people entitled to goods that they had no hand in making? What if all(or half) the people decided they'd rather not work?

 

[Sinny91]

Why not?

The evil global cabal, thats why not.

 

[Rualani]

I'm in full support of streamlining parts of the welfare system with a sustainable UBI. A lot of our tax dollars that go to welfare aren't seen by the people they are supposed to be helping. When people don't have basic resources they are worse at many things. Even making good choices becomes more difficult in desperation and the low-tier jobs in our current system don't even solve the issue of desperation. I wonder how many discoveries aren't happening due to this fact.

I'm not up for removing the competitive aspects at a middle-high tier, I just think the notion of a spiked floor is just absolute bullshit. I bet the first country that implements a UBI will see improvements to their society.

In the end, it most appeals to me as it is a blow against the losses of human potential that are occurring currently.

 

[Tannhauser]

Uhm.. I don't think you need to be an economist to realize that all this money you're gonna hand out to people – it has to come from somewhere.

 

[Analyzer]

Am I(and presumably my community) allowed to opt-out of such distribution of resources?

If yes, then "why not?" is right.

 

[Brontosaurie]

"Capitalism is responsible"

That's pretty much like saying "Human nature is responsible".

There's never been anything but capitalism throughout history. Rich fucks have always been playing ego games with resources that could've saved lives.

The world is imperfect. No solution will come from denial of this basic fact. "Capitalism" in the common (but misleading) sense better termed non-communism (some form of functional democratic market freedom allowing counter-democratic capital accumulation) is not what makes evil occur. I know it's easy to think that when many big transnational corporations are evil and thrive on market freedom, but the thing is, capital in itself is a resonant phenomenon, regardless of means. Strong minds that are also cunning and selfish will find their ways to create a self-reinforcing scheme, to circumvent and short-circuit systems in order to extract disproportionate wealth. It has always been going on, long before the emergence of what the left calls "capitalism". You want to focus your attention on the genetic dispositions for greed, not on "abolishing capitalism" like that's a decision within anyone's reach. Consistently defined, capitalism is a trivial condition of human life as we know it - yet much of communist rhetoric centers around this silly dichotomous notion that the (demonstrably inefficient and wasteful) social arrangement of planned economy is capable of eradicating it. No policy has ever been the diametric opposite of evil. It's just not that simple. And yes, evil is precisely the matter here.

Note: Many parts of the world aren't "modern or advanced societies" yet.

 

[Tannhauser]

I recently heard a very good point about people's perception of what capitalism is. When they say 'capitalism' they think of superpowerful corporations. But that is better called corporatism. In fact, capitalism is just a market where prices are decided by supply and demand. Corporatism is sort of what we have now – huge corporations with power to influence politics. Do these corporations thrive in a free market? Actually no – it is found that these huge corporations often support more regulation, because the regulations hurt small- and medium sized companies much more than the large corporations.

 

[LOLZ9000]

Many of you are acting awfully Ni in this forum. What happened to INTPs thinking deeply about a topic and going back to first principles?

The first problem with your question is that it is phrased all wrong. "Why not?" is not the right question, but rather "why yes'? If you want to disrupt the natural state of things, which by the way, is survival of the fittest, then you are the one that needs to put forward a compelling reason.

This question comes down to what your first principles are. Do you believe that above else, all people have basic rights? Okay, which rights? Why?

Or perhaps you are taking a less idealistic, more practical perspective. Perhaps you mean that a minimum income will be a "net benefit" to society, despite its costs, because it will lower poverty and hence lower crime and medical costs that are a great economic and social burden on society. Okay, but you'd need to do an economic analysis if you are thinking along these lines (which I am guessing you are not). Does the economic analysis justify redistribution of wealth for these purposes? And even if it does from a national perspective, do you believe that the economic utility of the nation outweight the rights and preferences of the individuals whose money would be leeched to accomplish this? Why do you believe this? Etc.

Basically your question is sloppy without any logical justification. It just doesn't seem very INTP at all of you...

"Capitalism is responsible"

That's pretty much like saying "Human nature is responsible".

There's never been anything but capitalism throughout history. Rich fucks have always been playing ego games with resources that could've saved lives.

The world is imperfect. No solution will come from denial of this basic fact. "Capitalism" in the common (but misleading) sense better termed non-communism (some form of functional democratic market freedom allowing counter-democratic capital accumulation) is not what makes evil occur. I know it's easy to think that when many big transnational corporations are evil and thrive on market freedom, but the thing is, capital in itself is a resonant phenomenon, regardless of means. Strong minds that are also cunning and selfish will find their ways to create a self-reinforcing scheme, to circumvent and short-circuit systems in order to extract disproportionate wealth. It has always been going on, long before the emergence of what the left calls "capitalism". You want to focus your attention on the genetic dispositions for greed, not on "abolishing capitalism" like that's a decision within anyone's reach. Consistently defined, capitalism is a trivial condition of human life as we know it - yet much of communist rhetoric centers around this silly dichotomous notion that the (demonstrably inefficient and wasteful) social arrangement of planned economy is capable of eradicating it. No policy has ever been the diametric opposite of evil. It's just not that simple. And yes, evil is precisely the matter here.

Note: Many parts of the world aren't "modern or advanced societies" yet.

This guys gets it.

I recently heard a very good point about people's perception of what capitalism is. When they say 'capitalism' they think of superpowerful corporations. But that is better called corporatism. In fact, capitalism is just a market where prices are decided by supply and demand. Corporatism is sort of what we have now – huge corporations with power to influence politics. Do these corporations thrive in a free market? Actually no – it is found that these huge corporations often support more regulation, because the regulations hurt small- and medium sized companies much more than the large corporations.

While corporations have found ways to use lobbying to benefit from regulation in specific ways, the bottom line is that unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies and corporate power much faster than regulated capitalism. Regulation is your friend if you dislike corporate power. Think about, the larger a capitalist venture gets, the more advantaged it is against its competitors in having economies of scale (e.g., lower relative fixed cost base). This advantage keeps on snowballing until no competition is market-competitive. This is why many governments have anti-monopoly regulations.

 

[Tannhauser]

While corporations have found ways to use lobbying to benefit from regulation in specific ways, the bottom line is that unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies and corporate power much faster than regulated capitalism. Regulation is your friend if you dislike corporate power. Think about, the larger a capitalist venture gets, the more advantaged it is against its competitors in having economies of scale (e.g., lower relative fixed cost base). This advantage keeps on snowballing until no competition is market-competitive. This is why many governments have anti-monopoly regulations.

Is it a categorically bad thing though, that these large capitalist ventures can reduce relative costs etc? It implies that they can sell a good product at a lower price. If one always kept politics and business separate, how would this be a problem? To me, corporate power has no real meaning unless it is closely connected with politics.

 

[Sinny91]

Uhm.. I don't think you need to be an economist to realize that all this money you're gonna hand out to people – it has to come from somewhere.

Tree's?

 

[Analyzer]

]

While corporations have found ways to use lobbying to benefit from regulation in specific ways, the bottom line is that unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies and corporate power much faster than regulated capitalism. Regulation is your friend if you dislike corporate power. Think about, the larger a capitalist venture gets, the more advantaged it is against its competitors in having economies of scale (e.g., lower relative fixed cost base). This advantage keeps on snowballing until no competition is market-competitive. This is why many governments have anti-monopoly regulations.

Governments having anti-monopoly regulations is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Walk
In a society of just me and you, we decide on have a UBI. Now we both get a minimum standard of living. We just need to find someone to go and get the capital for us. Obviously we need a rich person, after all, rich people have enough money to sustain many! We put an ad in the paper, asking for a rich person to come and support us. How many responses do we get?

1) Your system is unfair. Wealth doesn't come from nowhere, and so there's a necessary inequality in workload.

2) Once people are no longer motivated by their innate drive to serve themselves, they no longer optimise for beneficial outcomes. Why should someone spend time and effort improving their operation if the outcome is the same anyway? There would be less to go round because nobody would have motive to continue.

3) Such a system is difficult to enact in our political reality. The people with money wield more power of influence. You lobby the government for a UBI, and some suit with something to lose will slip them a tenner to ignore you, if you're ever taken seriously enough to warrant their intervention.

@LOLZ9000
Please don't make typological attacks on this forum. If you disagree with someone's ideas, pick the idea apart. Dismissing people based on type is a big nono (and very unINTP XD).

I don't know about survival of the fittest being axiomatic. Plenty of people survive and reproduce without being even close to the fittest. Using that as a baseline for continued discussion when survival and fitness are both loaded and ambiguous doesn't seem right to me. 'Survival and loose reproduction of those that don't die out' would be better, but then it's kinda tautological/redundant. Does it really boil down to 'some things just don't work'? That's something everyone can agree on, but it doesn't help evidence anything, or hasn't so far.

Basically your question is sloppy without any logical justification. It just doesn't seem very INTP at all of you...

It was a question, not a statement. Walk did not hide his ignorance and asked out of curiosity in good faith, it was sloppy because he didn't know the answer. Why would you want to kill an honest curiosity?

By all means continue to contribute, it's not as if your posts were nonsensical, I just don't see the arrogant tone as productive or desirable.

 

[Sinny91]

Lol according to LOL Bronto must be the most INTP in the thread, aha, chuckle chuckle.

 

[LOLZ9000]

Is it a categorically bad thing though, that these large capitalist ventures can reduce relative costs etc? It implies that they can sell a good product at a lower price. If one always kept politics and business separate, how would this be a problem? To me, corporate power has no real meaning unless it is closely connected with politics.

I don't think that it is categorically bad, but you can imagine a situation in which monopoly is very dangerous from an individual perspective, where the sole producer of a good can shut off supply and jack up prices. In an industry when a competitor can't just spring up and compete immediately, this gives a lot of power to the monopoly and puts individuals at the monopoly's mercy.

I'm not saying that is categorically good or bad, but it is definitely better for the corporation and worse for the individual.

I can also imagine a situation where a "benevolent" monopoly keeps prices low and enjoys the fact that they can print money for free, so it's not necessarily all bad. But that risk certainly lurks anytime a monopoly with any kind of barrier to entry for competitors exists.

Governments having anti-monopoly regulations is a contradiction in terms.

Not really, it's just hypocrisy.

 

[LOLZ9000]

@LOLZ9000
Please don't make typological attacks on this forum. If you disagree with someone's ideas, pick the idea apart. Dismissing people based on type is a big nono (and very unINTP XD).

Perhaps I'm ENTP. =P

But seriously, sorry - I had a lot of coffee and was feeling brash. Apologies to OP.

I don't know about survival of the fittest being axiomatic. Plenty of people survive and reproduce without being even close to the fittest. Using that as a baseline for continued discussion when survival and fitness are both loaded and ambiguous doesn't seem right to me. 'Survival and loose reproduction of those that don't die out' would be better, but then it's kinda tautological/redundant. Does it really boil down to 'some things just don't work'? That's something everyone can agree on, but it doesn't help evidence anything, or hasn't so far.

I think survival of the fittest, statistically, is essentially true - but only in pre-government societies. With government, those that would otherwise die are supported (welfare of one sort or another). This is deemed palatable by the powerful because even the powerful see that a constant battle for dominance will lead to an anxious and short life. By forfeiting their power to dominate and take as they will via the social (legal?) contract, the powerful also give themselves more security. Now of course many governments do not operate like this at all, but ours does as do most modern stable countries.

But the key idea is that government is a protection against our nature, which is survival of the fittest. Just like how the fact that airplanes can fly does not disprove gravity, similarly the fact that governments nullify survival of the fittest, or at least distort it, dos not disprove that natural law itself.

 

[The Gopher]

Lol according to LOL Bronto must be the most INTP in the thread, aha, chuckle chuckle.

To be fair Bronto is one of the most INTP people on the forum. (I will now sit back and wait while Bronto wonders if I'm being sarcastic or not)

Spoiler

Seriously though he probably is. See I thought he was an INFP or ISFP because he was so much like me however turns out I wasn't an INFP.

 

[Grayman]

To be fair Bronto is one of the most INTP people on the forum. (I will now sit back and wait while Bronto wonders if I'm being sarcastic or not)

Spoiler

Seriously though he probably is. See I thought he was an INFP or ISFP because he was so much like me however turns out I wasn't an INFP.

So if Bronto is like you and you think he is probably INTP does that mean you think you are INTP now?

 

[Sly-fy]

What I don't understand is why do we make people pay for things that they shouldn't pay for.

I completely agree. People shouldn`t have to pay things like a minimal wage, or Obamacare, or an inheritance tax or a sales tax. Nor should they pay for perfectly fit and able bodied people who wish to not work and do drugs instead (granted, some of them do want to work but can`t find jobs because the taxes and minimal wages are too high for employers to afford hiring as many people as they need.) People also shouldn`t be forced to pay a higher federal income tax the more they earn, as it discourages people from growing their businesses and employing people.

 

[Grayman]

I completely agree. People shouldn`t have to pay things like a minimal wage, or Obamacare, or an inheritance tax or a sales tax. Nor should they pay for perfectly fit and able bodied people who wish to not work and do drugs instead (granted, some of them do want to work but can`t find jobs because the taxes and minimal wages are too high for employers to afford hiring as many people as they need.) People also shouldn`t be forced to pay a higher federal income tax the more they earn, as it discourages people from growing their businesses and employing people.

Businesses aren't going to hire more people that they don't need just because labor is cheaper. They will always try to get by with the least amount of workers they can.

 

[Analyzer]

I think survival of the fittest, statistically, is essentially true - but only in pre-government societies. With government, those that would otherwise die are supported (welfare of one sort or another). This is deemed palatable by the powerful because even the powerful see that a constant battle for dominance will lead to an anxious and short life. By forfeiting their power to dominate and take as they will via the social (legal?) contract, the powerful also give themselves more security. Now of course many governments do not operate like this at all, but ours does as do most modern stable countries.

How does this contract work? Do people by their very nature of being, submit themselves to this ideology?

 

[Sly-fy]

Businesses aren't going to higher more people that they don't need just because labor is cheaper. They will always try to get by with the least amount of workers they can.

Here in Australia they`re in the process of phasing out McDonald`s register jobs with machines (and BTW, it takes passing three interviews to get a job at McDonald`s these days, if you`re lucky enough for them to even call you.) Cafes are hiring half as many waiters as they need because of a $17.5 minimum wage, and hiring them only part time so as not to have to pay their insurance and superannuation, guarantee vacations or whatever.

On a larger scale, all manufacturing and call-center jobs are moving overseas to India and other places where they can have cheaper labor. This problem is far-reaching and doesn`t only affect Australia but every developed country that goes in the direction of a minimal wage, and especially a high minimum wage. Higher wages and taxes also make products more expensive, and so our products don`t get exported and can`t even compete in their country of origin because of cheaper imports.

From my own experience and friends` experiences, the jobs situation is much more favorable in the US, particularly in the states that don`t have minimum wage laws as many jobs are given on site with no questions asked, so long as you have a Social Security card to present. If you show up ready to work (a lot of the time) you`re good to go! It`s a similar story in Japan, which has a low minimum wage of ￥840 ($7.41 US.)

The most devastating problem that this (low jobs availability caused by minimum wage among other things) creates is it turns many young people away from even looking for work, when they can just live on social welfare just as well, doing nothing but abusing substances and living with their parents or bunking with ten other youths and partying every day and every night. And then pretending to know economics on the internet they go advocating for socialist policies like a minimum wage and higher taxes on people who actually make money. The cultural problem is the most severe one of all.

 

[Absurdity]

Y-Combinator is supposed to be funding a study on the effects of implementing UBI and examining whether it causes people to stop working.

Sarah Perry over at Ribbon Farm has a good post about it and the few other previous studies that have been done.

 

[LOLZ9000]

How does this contract work? Do people by their very nature of being, submit themselves to this ideology?

Yes. The majority benefit from mutually agreed "order" (i.e. Property rights), so they agree to it. Those who don't are expelled or forced into submission by the police state (i.e. any state).

 

[RaBind]

I should provide some context first. I am pro UBI and it’s mainly due to the inevitable impact that automation and technological unemployment is going to have on society.
So when I present some arguments, keep in mind that I might be looking anywhere between 5 to 20 years into the future, when the two forces I mentioned will grow to be a significant influence in how we think.

Capitalism is currently on a course towards instability and collapse mainly due to automation and technological unemployment. UBI is a policy that’s meant to allow the consumer – producer cycle to continue.
Though it's very unlikely to be implemented in any country in the near future, UBI or a similar policy aimed at stabilizing capitalism will be a necessity in the future.

UBI is actually a pro-capitalist libertarian policy, and many famous economists and right wingers have supported it.

I feel like many here aren't too well informed on what UBI even is based on what I've read, so it might be interesting to read up on the idea.

http://www.basicincome.org/basic-income/

competitiveness should not be economical

I think you just meant should not be a necessity for survival.

Capitalism is not the problem. Humans have been buying/selling/bartering/trading for thousands of years. I believe 8000 years ago in Afghanistan is the first record of a kind of money.

The nature of Capitalism changes with historical context. Increasing automation of work increases the efficiency of accumulation of wealth. Capitalism will collapse if the wealth gap between the masses and the ultra-rich becomes too wide. The vast majority of consumerism and demand comes from the masses and capitalism simply cannot be sustainable if consumerism and demand take too grave a hit.

I agree with the notion that corporations influencing politics to make their dominance is negative.

Bottom line though: If you're consuming anything made/provided by others, then unless you're completely crippled/mentally handicapped, you have an obligation to produce as well. Parasites should be shamed.

I completely disagree. Nature and the reality of even current human societies is brutal. It is still survival of the fittest, humans have just managed place a buffer that separates our day to day lives from the brutality that still lingers.
The term “Parasites” is dehumanising. I know you are using it metaphorically; but these people are still every bit as human as you or me. They have family and friends and experience the hardships of life just as you or I have done.

Not only do I disagree in the factual sense, as I think these “Parasites”, as you call them, exist far and few in between the vast majority who’d seek a more fulfilling life if given the choice, I also believe that your view is morally bankrupt.
For example these parasites would be outstanding citizens next to the countless go getter cutthroat conmen and predators that thrive in society.

I’m sure you too are not fond of either of these groups, but your view as it is implicates that people who have found themselves stuck in a shitty situation, and have no nobler means of living but to be a parasite should rather become predators or thugs. This view is detrimental to society.

A UBI is a fine idea if it replaces the current welfare system, but that's not what's being proposed. They want to stack it on top of everything we already have, so no thanks.

Where did you get that impression? The essence of UBI is to maximize the efficiency of the welfare system, by replacing it with a universal service, which avoids costs associated with bureaucracy.

Why are these people entitled to goods that they had no hand in making?

These people are not entitled to anything. We as a society must decide that the well-being of the masses is more important than our love for the idea that the world should work a certain way.

Literally the same arguments for welfare that you’d come across are the arguments for UBI, because its basically just a replacement.

What if all(or half) the people decided they'd rather not work?

I think the danger is having people just freeload and not look to return something. The idea itself is really good, so long as people make an effort to use their economical freedom to give return to society the way they like to.

There have been studies which show that people’s behaviours are positively influence and are more likely to take risks for the sake of being productive, when they are guaranteed income for the basic necessities of living.

1) Your system is unfair. Wealth doesn't come from nowhere, and so there's a necessary inequality in workload.

The scheme is meant to replace the current welfare system, which is riddled with systematic problems.

2) Once people are no longer motivated by their innate drive to serve themselves, they no longer optimise for beneficial outcomes. Why should someone spend time and effort improving their operation if the outcome is the same anyway? There would be less to go round because nobody would have motive to continue.

UBI is not full blown communism. It doesn’t argue for equality of outcome but for equality of opportunity.

3) Such a system is difficult to enact in our political reality. The people with money wield more power of influence. You lobby the government for a UBI, and some suit with something to lose will slip them a tenner to ignore you, if you're ever taken seriously enough to warrant their intervention.

You’re probably right. Things will get much worse before they get better. Though I think it’s slowly gaining more interest.

Some of the flaws of UBI which I haven't seen addressed:-

I agree with many posters here that UBI still isn't fleshed out very well and for it to be taken more seriously it'd need to go through many studies to see how it could economically sustainable.

Because UBI is meant to be a replacement of the current welfare system, some people who require an extra amount of support i.e. disabled, elderly... may be worse of with UBI than their current situation.

There might be some others as well which I'm not remembering.

p.s. lol i might've got some of the quotes mixed up

 

[Sly-fy]

When I`m right I`m right, and one good indicator of that is when people who argue the opposite argument don`t challenge my facts. At some point you`ve got to wonder why that is...

Why would someone who doesn`t bring as much to the table earn the same amount that the someone who is more productive does? And by that token, what incentive does the outperformer have left to be outperforming, if regardless of their level of productivity their job and income are guaranteed? How is that fair?

 

[RaBind]

When I`m right I`m right, and one good indicator of that is when people who argue the opposite argument don`t challenge my facts. At some point you`ve got to wonder why that is...

Why would someone who doesn`t bring as much to the table earn the same amount that the someone who is more productive does? And by that token, what incentive does the outperformer have left to be outperforming, if regardless of their level of productivity their job and income are guaranteed? How is that fair?

I don't know who you are so it's not like I have a history of ignoring your arguments, you probably shouldn't lump all who disagree with you as having one view cause that's just not how it works, I probably did miss some of the posts as I took a while writing my previous post so probably didn't address everyone individually, your argument is against something which UBI isn't and I've provided a link where the information is available and even then I've sort of answered your question too while addressing others.

UBI is not full blown communism. It doesn’t argue for equality of outcome but for equality of opportunity.

The scheme is meant to replace the current welfare system.

So it'll work very similarly to the current welfare system, as in it's there to support you when you need it but is pretty much an entirely separate entity from your income.

 

[Grayman]

Capitalism is currently on a course towards instability and collapse mainly due to automation and technological unemployment. UBI is a policy that’s meant to allow the consumer – producer cycle to continue.
Though it's very unlikely to be implemented in any country in the near future, UBI or a similar policy aimed at stabilizing capitalism will be a necessity in the future.

The loss of low labor jobs due to technology is supplemented by more technical jobs. Also, increased regulation and information gathering has and will continue to create more jobs. Finally entertainment will grow and produce more jobs and technology in this area only creates more opportunities for work.

If industrial automation becomes advanced enough I don't see why we wouldn't just work less hours a day for a greater salary in maintaining the equipment.

It is mainly those who have nothing to offer but hard labor who would suffer the transition into the robotic age. Would there be enough of them to need UBI? People are becoming more technical savy anyways.

 

[Sly-fy]

The loss of low labor jobs due to technology is supplemented by more technical jobs.

There`s a trend that`s been going around for the last couple of decades of such jobs being increasingly exported to countries like India and China. And you`re telling me that more of what`s causing that is going to help create more such jobs? Only in those countries, but not in the west, if the current trend is any indication of where things are going.

Also, increased regulation and information gathering has and will continue to create more jobs.

You mean due to new bureaucratic jobs in the government that result in billions and billions in mismanaged and defrauded taxpayer funds each year? And the more such government jobs are created, the higher the taxes are to fund them? The jobs that don`t create wealth? Those jobs?

Finally entertainment will grow and produce more jobs and technology in this area only creates more opportunities for work.

I literally have no idea where that last one comes from.

 

[PaulMaster]

Where will the money for a UBI come from?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Now what are the pros/ cons of such basic income?What does the detractors of such idea think?

Pro: None.
Con: I will get taxed more to pay for it and I don't want to pay for it.

 

[Sly-fy]

Where will the money for a UBI come from?

Sums up what I`ve been asking in unnecessarily long posts no one reads.

 

[PaulMaster]

Sums up what I`ve been asking in unnecessarily long posts no one reads.

If there's a good answer I'd back it. But there's not a good answer.

 

[Sly-fy]

If there's a good answer I'd back it. But there's not a good answer.

Yeah if money grew on trees. But then there are the deeper issues of no one being f***ed to do a damn thing because there`s no incentive to work any harder than the laziest slob in the world.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah, basically OP amounts to nothing but communist insistence on naïvete. Very difficult to argue with, ideally worth no more than a curt dismissal from conversation. Yet discourse perversion demands that such blatant irrationality be treated with intricate analysis. What a waste of time it is. We're just playing along with their game of completely ignoring real circumstances. To argue with a communist is to be a fool. Now i'm not saying it can't be healthy to take on the role of a fool sometimes, but it's better done consciously.

The problem is that this standard retort, "They're unrealistic" seems too simple to be true. But that in itself is a deception. It really is that simple. And i believe this psychological turn-around is the key to communism's astounding success in ideological marketing. Basically, say shit so fundamentally whack that criticizing it in plain speak makes one sound like a simpleton.

 

[Sly-fy]

Now i'm not saying it can't be healthy to take on the role of a fool sometimes, but it's better done consciously.

A wise man would agree:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

u gotta base b4 u can space

but nah back when i was 14 and into the whole politio thing thats like what i thought, basic income for all, take out jails too we aint need that sh!zz help each other out we are one humanity we are one people together we can reach the stars and colonise space and meet cool alien races and play pokemon together happily ever after etc etc

 

[Sly-fy]

u gotta base b4 u can space

but nah back when i was 14 and into the whole politio thing thats like what i thought, basic income for all, take out jails too we aint need that sh!zz help each other out we are one humanity we are one people together we can reach the stars and colonise space and meet cool alien races and play pokemon together happily ever after etc etc

The 14 year old you sounded like Kasich, only smarter and more grounded in reality.

 

[RaBind]

The loss of low labor jobs due to technology is supplemented by more technical jobs.

The rate of the loss of low labor jobs is much higher than the creation of more technical jobs. i.e. 5 cashiers can be replaced with 5 self service machines and a technician for maintenance.

Most of those who lose their low labour jobs are going to struggle getting the more competitive and demanding replacement technical jobs.

Significant re-education and training is not an option for a lot of people i.e. those who are barely breaking even or have a family to care for.

Also, increased regulation and information gathering has and will continue to create more jobs.

The creation of quality jobs which cannot be automated to some degree, and to an increasing degree as the capabilities of software increases, are rare. These jobs require skills and traits that are inherent in few, the vast majority need to train to be able to fulfil these roles.

Finally entertainment will grow and produce more jobs and technology in this area only creates more opportunities for work.

Entertainment is a product it requires a healthy consumer base for it to exist within the system of capitalism. UBI is meant to keep this consumer base healthy.

Also I read some article quite a while ago that was arguing that the consumption of Entertainment is limited and not infinite, so cannot be sustainable as a enlarging job sector. I think it's pretty straightforward, 10 different songs cannot simultaneously be the best seller no matter how much of a masterpiece they all are. There is a finite consumer base. I'll see if I can dig it up.

If industrial automation becomes advanced enough I don't see why we wouldn't just work less hours a day for a greater salary in maintaining the equipment.

This simply hasn't been the case for how things turn out historically (Although it's debatable depending on where in history you start from).
http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

It is mainly those who have nothing to offer but hard labor who would suffer the transition into the robotic age. Would there be enough of them to need UBI? People are becoming more technical savy anyways.

Largest occupations in each area, May 2014
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_emp_chart/area_emp_chart.htm#

Currently low skill jobs (this can included white collar jobs) are the most common type of jobs.

People are becoming technical savy, however that's due to them being consumers of tech. I don't think this is a very good argument to suggest that these consumers can or will become producers.

Where will the money for a UBI come from?

UBI is meant to be a replacement of the current welfare system

So monies from the current system plus what's saved by eliminating the bureaucracy and redundancy and it'll probably require a higher tax depending on how much you earn or some similar measure.

Also I'm assuming everyone here has seen CCP grey's video on technological unemployment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Another video documentary thing on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c

 

[Inquisitor]

I should provide some context first. I am pro UBI and it’s mainly due to the inevitable impact that automation and technological unemployment is going to have on society.
So when I present some arguments, keep in mind that I might be looking anywhere between 5 to 20 years into the future, when the two forces I mentioned will grow to be a significant influence in how we think.

Capitalism is currently on a course towards instability and collapse mainly due to automation and technological unemployment. UBI is a policy that’s meant to allow the consumer – producer cycle to continue.
Though it's very unlikely to be implemented in any country in the near future, UBI or a similar policy aimed at stabilizing capitalism will be a necessity in the future.

UBI is actually a pro-capitalist libertarian policy, and many famous economists and right wingers have supported it.

I feel like many here aren't too well informed on what UBI even is based on what I've read, so it might be interesting to read up on the idea.

http://www.basicincome.org/basic-income/

The nature of Capitalism changes with historical context. Increasing automation of work increases the efficiency of accumulation of wealth. Capitalism will collapse if the wealth gap between the masses and the ultra-rich becomes too wide. The vast majority of consumerism and demand comes from the masses and capitalism simply cannot be sustainable if consumerism and demand take too grave a hit.

I agree with the notion that corporations influencing politics to make their dominance is negative.

Yes everyone knows automation and offshoring wipe out jobs and that this could result in way more "inequality" in the future...but we're not there yet.

BTW, that website is largely hogwash. I'm not seeing many trained PhD economists under the "Research" section. It's a bunch of activists/journalists. Full disclosure: I majored in economics and am now considering an econ PhD + taking math classes at my university...And I also lean libertarian.

UBI is definitely not the only policy option here either. A negative income tax would probably achieve much the same results but with greater efficiency...and it wouldn't disincentivize work to the same extent. Wage subsidies are also another possibility.

I completely disagree. Nature and the reality of even current human societies is brutal. It is still survival of the fittest, humans have just managed place a buffer that separates our day to day lives from the brutality that still lingers.
The term “Parasites” is dehumanising. I know you are using it metaphorically; but these people are still every bit as human as you or me. They have family and friends and experience the hardships of life just as you or I have done.

Not only do I disagree in the factual sense, as I think these “Parasites”, as you call them, exist far and few in between the vast majority who’d seek a more fulfilling life if given the choice, I also believe that your view is morally bankrupt.
For example these parasites would be outstanding citizens next to the countless go getter cutthroat conmen and predators that thrive in society.

I’m sure you too are not fond of either of these groups, but your view as it is implicates that people who have found themselves stuck in a shitty situation, and have no nobler means of living but to be a parasite should rather become predators or thugs. This view is detrimental to society.

No sorry. Like I said, if people are incapable of working for reasons that most of us would deem..."understandable" (think disabilities, illness, infirmity, addictions, etc.), that's one thing. I fully agree those people should be cared for. In the past, charities fulfilled this role, and to a great extent they still do. But otherwise, the correct label for someone who refuses to develop themselves and work is "parasite." They should feel ashamed of themselves, and thankfully, I would bet the majority of them do. Shame/low esteem is a powerful incentive that motivates behavior that leads to success. Who has the highest self-esteem? African Americans. The lowest? Asians. We both know which group is more successful on the whole.

I'm not going to address the strawman argument about "conmen" and "predators." Stick to discussing the topic at hand.

Where did you get that impression? The essence of UBI is to maximize the efficiency of the welfare system, by replacing it with a universal service, which avoids costs associated with bureaucracy.

Everything you believe rests on one very crucial assumption: that a UBI would replace all welfare programs, and nothing would ever be added on top of it. In that situation, then yes, it would be an improvement over our current system...But you need to be realistic about what's actually going to happen. The welfare policies we have now are never going to be repealed. Why? B/c any politician who supports this is committing political suicide. So...a UBI, if it gains momentum, would be added on top of what we have now...a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[LOLZ9000]

BTW, a conversation on UBI may miss the point of why we even need a "basic income". What qualifies as "basic"? Why "income"? Is the idea to provide for "basic" human needs? If so, why do we want to provide income instead of directly providing free government services?

Some interesting related questions are:

• Are there any basic human needs / basic human rights?
• If so, is it the government's responsibility to meet them?
• What is the value of providing a basic income as opposed to meeting needs directly?

But really, the first two cover 95% of this philosophical question. The latter question is just a matter of implementation.

 

[RaBind]

BTW, that website is largely hogwash. I'm not seeing many trained PhD economists under the "Research" section. It's a bunch of activists/journalists. Full disclosure: I majored in economics and am now considering an econ PhD + taking math classes at my university...And I also lean libertarian.

In cases where evidence doesn't support my argument disregard said evidence.
But I didn't really link the site to link to research studies or anything that substantial. I was simply seeing a lot of misconception about what UBI essentially even is, so the most helpful page in that site's probably the FAQs.

There's a wiki page for UBI pilots actually, it might be interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

UBI is definitely not the only policy option here either. A negative income tax would probably achieve much the same results but with greater efficiency...and it wouldn't disincentivize work to the same extent. Wage subsidies are also another possibility.

I definitely agree with you with UBI not being the only option nor likely to be the best.

I don't believe that UBI disincentivizes work, at least not for people who generally like feeling productive anyway. The majority of people, should they be given the choice, would probably much rather do meaningful work for additional money rather than be lazy and only afford the basic necessities of life. I think we are more at a disagreement about human nature than anything else.

I think we can both agree that people are self serving? Apparently we differ in whether we think that people would much rather seek additional spending money and productivity or be lazy and linger on with the basics of life.

No sorry. Like I said, if people are incapable of working for reasons that most of us would deem..."understandable" (think disabilities, illness, infirmity, addictions, etc.), that's one thing. I fully agree those people should be cared for. In the past, charities fulfilled this role, and to a great extent they still do.

I understood this from your previous post. This bit is morally sound.

But otherwise, the correct label for someone who refuses to develop themselves and work is "parasite." They should feel ashamed of themselves, and thankfully, I would bet the majority of them do. Shame/low esteem is a powerful incentive that motivates behavior that leads to success. Who has the highest self-esteem? African Americans. The lowest? Asians. We both know which group is more successful on the whole.

This bit is morally bankrupt. They are people they do not deserve to die. I'm not saying their mooching off of others is moral, justified or reasonable. I'm simply saying that they deserve more than to simply perish. They are humans after all they have families, friends and loved one like you or I do. These could be honest, peace loving, friendly, good/moral, intellectual people we are talking about. None of those traits are mutually exclusive to being lazy. I think you are simply using the term "parasite" as a psychological buffer to be able to hold harsh beliefs about them.

On a somewhat unrelated note I also think that murderers shouldn't be executed.

Also as I said I disagree with you about the fact of the matter that there are even a lot of these "parasites". I think there's relatively few of them and the loss of their continued existence is outweighed by the liberation of those who would seek self actualization.

I'm not going to address the strawman argument about "conmen" and "predators." Stick to discussing the topic at hand.

Though it is another argument altogether, it is related through implication as I've mentioned. Though if you wish you are not obliged to say anything.

Everything you believe rests on one very crucial assumption: that a UBI would replace all welfare programs, and nothing would ever be added on top of it. In that situation, then yes, it would be an improvement over our current system...But you need to be realistic about what's actually going to happen. The welfare policies we have now are never going to be repealed. Why? B/c any politician who supports this is committing political suicide. So...a UBI, if it gains momentum, would be added on top of what we have now...a terrible, terrible idea.

This doesn't mean that you are against UBI, it simply means that you are against a bastardize version of UBI which is something that I'd also be against.

 

[PaulMaster]

• Are there any basic human needs / basic human rights?
• If so, is it the government's responsibility to meet them?
• What is the value of providing a basic income as opposed to meeting needs directly?

Excellent point. I agree.

Answers:
Yes
I'm not sure...I dont think so...
I would think providing basic "needs" would minimize misuse.

 

[RaBind]

BTW, a conversation on UBI may miss the point of why we even need a "basic income". What qualifies as "basic"? Why "income"? Is the idea to provide for "basic" human needs? If so, why do we want to provide income instead of directly providing free government services?

Because one shoe doesn't fit all sizes.

The current state of welfare is inefficient and many aspects of it are redundant. Means testing for example is an infamous element of targeted welfare schemes which can introduce problems such as the welfare trap.

Some interesting related questions are:

• Are there any basic human needs / basic human rights?
• If so, is it the government's responsibility to meet them?
• What is the value of providing a basic income as opposed to meeting needs directly?

But really, the first two cover 95% of this philosophical question. The latter question is just a matter of implementation.

I thought we'd already had the discussion about the first two questions as a society. If not than why does the current welfare system exist? Why aren't the poor left out in the streets to starve and die already?

 

[Analyzer]

Yes. The majority benefit from mutually agreed "order" (i.e. Property rights), so they agree to it. Those who don't are expelled or forced into submission by the police state (i.e. any state).

So political rights precede property rights? Does this mean that the supposed original social contract was concluded on a cave man wall? If not, how did the conditions of the pre-contract world allow for capital to be organized in a way without property? Unless property didn't exist in the pre-contract world.

I assume you believe statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, yet the alleged "social contract" that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

 

[Inquisitor]

This bit is morally bankrupt. They are people they do not deserve to die. I'm not saying their mooching off of others is moral, justified or reasonable. I'm simply saying that they deserve more than to simply perish. They are humans after all they have families, friends and loved one like you or I do. These could be honest, peace loving, friendly, good/moral, intellectual people we are talking about. None of those traits are mutually exclusive to being lazy. I think you are simply using the term "parasite" as a psychological buffer to be able to hold harsh beliefs about them.

You are really trampling on one of my most dearly prized principles. It's essentially compassion for laziness.

I don't care how lovely anyone is...if they refuse to work while consuming the fruits of others' labor, they are parasites, and should feel nothing but shame. I don't understand how anyone could believe otherwise. Except for the situations I mentioned earlier, there is zero reason why we as a society should tolerate people mooching off of others. You either work hard and then get to enjoy the rewards, or you don't. Otherwise it's a disservice to the moochers and to those who make the efforts. Anyway...it's a non issue as I state below...

Also as I said I disagree with you about the fact of the matter that there are even a lot of these "parasites". I think there's relatively few of them and the loss of their continued existence is outweighed by the liberation of those who would seek self actualization.

Giving every citizen even $10,000 would be horrendously expensive, and that wouldn't be nearly enough to live well. That said, the work disincentives have been found to exist...which is why expanding the EITC or imposing a negative income tax would be more realistic and efficient solutions.

 

[LOLZ9000]

I thought we'd already had the discussion about the first two questions as a society. If not than why does the current welfare system exist? Why aren't the poor left out in the streets to starve and die already?

I dug up some old newspaper quotes from my local public library that I found interesting:

"I thought we'd already had the discussion about slavery as a society. If not than why does the current slavery system exist? Why aren't the slaves let out in the streets to be free already?" - 1806 Plattsburg Gazzette

"I thought we'd already had the discussion about alcohol as a society. If not than why does the current prohibition system exist? Why aren't the degenerates let out in the streets to drink freely already?" - 1925 Boston Globe

​

So political rights precede property rights? Does this mean that the supposed original social contract was concluded on a cave man wall? If not, how did the conditions of the pre-contract world allow for capital to be organized in a way without property? Unless property didn't exist in the pre-contract world.

I assume you believe statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, yet the alleged "social contract" that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

I didn't fully follow your line of reasoning, but I will try to answer the questions I think you are asking me.

Re: capital in a pre-contract world. It was pretty simple. Those that had resources could buy force. Those that had force could get resources. This is a self-perpetuating cycle. Examples in the pre-contract world include the Mongols (resources via force) and resource-rich trading society (e.g., salt/silk traders that gained power through resources). More often then not, in the pre-contract world, force was the initial prerequisite. In that world, without force you were at the mercy of those who had force. Self-governing/self-policing villages would exist, of course, at the micro-level, but those were often razed/dominated by external forces. Trade/markets certainly flourished where it was allowed to (capitalism), but there was much disruption and massive corporations did not exist for several obvious reasons (e.g., lack of scalable technology, lack of factories, lack of government protections against theft/force, etc.)

Re: states and meta-states. Governments need no contract, they are the top of the food chain. Why would the government need a contract to give it legitimacy if it controls the army and police force that can subjugate any threats to its power?

Look, I'm not saying that without official contracts, no cooperation would exist. I am saying that even if 95% of people "played nice", the 5% that didn't feel like playing nice and decided to use force to get what they want would ruin it for everyone else. Hence the perceived need for police, defense, etc. Self-policing can work in small communities but not in a global community with several competing populations.

 

[RaBind]

Giving every citizen even $10,000 would be horrendously expensive, and that wouldn't be nearly enough to live well. That said, the work disincentives have been found to exist...which is why expanding the EITC or imposing a negative income tax would be more realistic and efficient solutions.

That's a genuine issue for UBI right now. It would be expensive and for some it may not be as beneficial as with the current system.

UBI is meant to be only for making living possible so it's fine if the quality of life on it alone is low, though as I say the disabled, elderly, sick... would struggle under such a system.

You're right, there seems to have been 5-17% reduction in total hours worked in some studies. Though it's unclear exactly what group was affected. If it's the case that people working 55 hours a week shifts dropped their work load to a more manageable/reasonable 40 - 45, out of their own volition, than I wouldn't really say that's a negative impact. Dissatisfied people with unfulfilling work dropping their jobs, which they otherwise would've had no other choice but to hold on to them is also something I wouldn't call negative.

I dug up some old newspaper quotes from my local public library that I found interesting:

"I thought we'd already had the discussion about slavery as a society. If not than why does the current slavery system exist? Why aren't the slaves let out in the streets to be free already?" - 1806 Plattsburg Gazzette

"I thought we'd already had the discussion about alcohol as a society. If not than why does the current prohibition system exist? Why aren't the degenerates let out in the streets to drink freely already?" - 1925 Boston Globe​

I'm not saying don't think about it or that the subject is not worth thinking about, just that most of society has already given it considerable thought.

It is already something that is being done so it might as well be done right. I'm open to the question of whether or not UBI is the right way to do it.​