I find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.
Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
91–100 of 178 posts
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#92I find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.
Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1]
Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth.
What part of this is "absolutely ridiculous"?
[1] http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.For...
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#93Consider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead, we're wasting 40% of our food, exporting food, and reading articles about obesity epidemics and how the grocery store is reducing its 57 varieties of ketchup so that we won't have so much difficulty choosing.
Manufacturing is going that way. We're well into the disposable junk and cheaper to replace than repair era. Relatively few people work in industry now.
That only leaves services. But how many people does it take to hand you your burger or bag your new cellphone? Repairmen have less to do now that most everything is disposable. Even in the more professional level services, salaries have been stagnant for decades, moreso than minimum wage in some cases. Sure companies complain that they can't find good talent, but they're not willing to pay for it, so they don't really need it.
The traditionalists say "people will just go do something else, like they always have" but what? Well, for now, some could become Uber drivers or such...until the automated cars come online in a few years. Then what? And how many Uber drivers do we need? Can they make a good living doing that if everyone else is too?
People moved from the farms to the cities to do industrial work, then commuted from the suburbs to do commercial and services work. Where do they go when none of the farms, cities, and suburbs need workers anymore (and they can't afford to live in any of those places)?
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm kinda libertarian, and I kinda like the idea of a UBI, because it means we no longer need people in power to make decisions about who gets welfare and other social support, and all the gaming and corruption involved. I've come around to the idea that there can't and won't be zero public social support, so UBI seems like the fairest, least-overhead way to take care of it. The downside is, the argument/power of who…
UBI can't replace welfare -- it cannot provide enough money to everyone to replace whole salaries. If you agree that welfare should exist to take care of people who cannot work or have expensive conditions that need to be treated then BI cannot replace it.
If you have to keep welfare, medicare, social security, etc... then what's the point? Just another bureaucratic money sink?
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#95People are using Australia as an example, we have very large taxes (most people pay at least 25%, some 35%+) we also have a 10% tax on all goods and high GDP per capita. You cant fund social welfare programs without huge taxes on everyone not just the rich.
Australia along with Canada have the highest wealth per person of any countries in the world. Much of the wealth comes from a large land area divided by a tiny population. I remember reading in an Australian magazine about 15 yrs ago (but forget the details) that Australia is the country with the largest proportion of "made-up jobs", i.e. jobs in finance, law, IT, etc which don't actually contribute to the production and distribution of goods and services. By making laws which businesses must comply with by creating "made-up jobs", the government is ensuring there's enough work for everyone, a form of basic income.
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe IQ deficits or otherwise may be a "fast curtain" to a "bad second act." I believe offering free food and shelter would be far less expensive and a better investment. Example: 25% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, what would they do with free money? h…
Investing in free mass transportation, health care, affordable/free higher education, affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. Basic Income seems like it would inevitably lead to inflation especially since 'fiat money' economics are so prone to emotional speculations.…
It turns out the "sensible alternative" has been tested against the "just give people money" thing and it consistently has higher costs and worse outcomes.
It shouldn't be surprising that bureaucracies are inefficient.
If justice and democracy prevail I predict the participatory budget will approach 100%.
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18 involves roughly 2.5 trillion dollars in payouts per year, about 10% GDP for the country (about twice the GDP accounted for by social security). Increasing basic income to $20,000 per year doubles that to about 5 trillion, and that is stil…
US GDP has risen by more than 5 trillion since the year 2000 driven mostly by productivity improvements from tech. So we could already be doing it if we wanted to.
Is that in 2000 dollars?
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.
You don't get "money" from technology, you get utility from technology. You don't give people money for the productivity of technology... That's like having your washing machine pay you for the money it's saving you on hiring somebody to wash it by hand. The value is in the cost saved from using a technology, not the money you receive from it.
Exactly. But money is easy to create: we can just print it. Creating utility is real. Money is nominal.
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.
I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe IQ deficits or otherwise may be a "fast curtain" to a "bad second act." I believe offering free food and shelter would be far less expensive and a better investment. Example: 25% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, what would they do with free money? h…
Actually, people have tried. Giving cash seems to work better in general than more restricted forms of charity.
See eg http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...
Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a net loss for them. Yes they're getting some too, but it's just their money coming back to them. You'd be foolish to feel comforted by that. Also, UBI is far from libertarianism. Libertarians want to be in control of their own money.
This is the essential problem with libertarianism. You can't personally be in control of money, it has to be granted by some sort of central authority. Even Bitcoin, which ostensibly is decentralized, still has central planning in the form of developing the software and the rules around how the blockchain functions. Bitcoin is designed to have very lightweight central planning, but it's still there.
What about gold?
(I don't like gold as a currency, but it doesn't seem to require even the modicum of central planning that bitcoin does.)