Then there is no safe way to fail. It would discourage innovation. You would have to stay with what works; even if you don't like it, it's getting harder to iterate, or there is a solid wall in the near future that you know you can't cross.
Well now you've significantly lowered the benefit of a UBI in our fully automated future. Before it was "if we don't do this then 90% of people will literally have no money and won't be able to live." You've changed it to "innovation among entertainers will be discouraged." I think you might be able to get people on board to support the first justification. The second one is going to be a lot harder to sell.
I did no such thing. I only countered one specific scenario that you proposed.
Both justifications exists, along with an multitude more justifications.
healthcare is not an extra payment though. I think it is important to have a universal healthcare even with UBI.
Yes, the most immediate thing that can be done to effect progress towards a UBI is to lower medical costs. The tricky question is whether we can do that. For instance, does new medical technology do much to lower lifetime spending?
>does new medical technology do much to lower lifetime spending?
Not in general. New technologies/medicines/etc. tend to increase healthcare costs.
But I have to echo eanzenberg's comment, > How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause? If you're giving each person $13k/yr, does that not imply that you must then collect $13k/yr/person in taxes? Unless you're thinking it is all going to come from corporate taxes, then at least some of it must come from a citizen's taxes, no? (and if you do think this should come from corporations, do you…
You can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases. It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.
That's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation.
There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.
Maybe you should let those people speak for themselves. But I guess if you did that, we'd never hear anything.
They are speaking for themselves. They want protectionism that will make us all less wealthy, and won't address the reality that automation is the real competitor. Someone has to come up with a good solution that makes everyone happier, or we'll get popular "solutions" that are harmful.
First you say they want jobs, now you say they want 'protectionism.' I think you are very confused, arguing from this vague stereotype.
More importantly, UBI doesn't prevent people who want jobs from getting jobs, so that seems a completely irrelevant thing to bring up anyway.
You can just print the money or otherwise conjure it into existence. For instance, by telling banks to change numbers in their databases. It probably isn't a good idea, but it's possible.
That's still a transfer from productive people to unproductive people. It just takes the specific form of hyperinflation. There is no difference between taxing everyone 20% of their holdings, and printing yourself 25% of everyone else's holdings. Either way you end up with a fifth of the wealth, and everyone's purchasing power goes down so yours can go up.
Yeah, I get that. It still has economic impact. But you don't have to explicitly account for the payouts with receipts, which the post I replied to seemed to think was necessary.
Can you share details on what specifically isn't computing?
I'm no "apalmer", but have a similar perspective... From a simple supply and demand standpoint, how does the extra income introduced not simply cause the cost of basic * goods to rise accordingly such that you end up with your UBI increasingly falling behind what is needed to support a minimum standard of living? * Added "basic" for clarity, I don't imagine this would affect the cost of luxury, or recreational goods…
In a closed system, it would. But if a US citizen can move to a location where not everyone gets the US basic income, then their basic income will be worth something.
They are speaking for themselves. They want protectionism that will make us all less wealthy, and won't address the reality that automation is the real competitor. Someone has to come up with a good solution that makes everyone happier, or we'll get popular "solutions" that are harmful.
First you say they want jobs, now you say they want 'protectionism.' I think you are very confused, arguing from this vague stereotype. More importantly, UBI doesn't prevent people who want jobs from getting jobs, so that seems a completely irrelevant thing to bring up anyway.
In the US, two popular anti-establishment candidates campaigned against free trade. Protectionism is popular. It's not a stereotype.
I get that UBI doesn't prevent people from getting jobs. I support it. It's just not a solution for people who's jobs have been automated away because lots of people were never looking for the freedom to accept a job that pays less the way UBI allows. It's like shortening Everest to improve mountain climbers' quality of life.
>People feel better when they know they are actively contributing. That's just a simple truth. I find this interesting, because it's a great example of some of the values implicit in American society. Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at it. In my opinion Ameri…
Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job. Note the way I expressed it, the emphasis is on contributing . Your particular spin strikes me as an eagerness to oppose a particular POV, then you go on to project that POV onto me. I don't thrive as well when contributing as a volunteer, which I did when under employed, as when I have a full time job. Keep in…
"Most of the jobs constituting valuable contributions are going to be paid"
This is not the way things are. This sounds more like something a politician told you to believe. The most valuable workers in our economy are underpaid (farm workers, waitresses, teachers, etc.), if they aren't totally voluntary already. (parents and caregivers)
In truth, when everyone has to make an income to survive, it instills a type of desperation in a society just to produce enough value to pay that next installment. This type of motivation is what leads impoverished South Americans to destroy the largest rainforest on Earth, or African children to work in gold mines exposed to toxic mercury, dragline fisherman to deplete great oceans full of life, the list is endless. This is all the stupidity of "growing" the economy, while bankers and politicians end up being the only one's "enriched" while the planet is irreplacably decimated.
I don't begin to pretend to understand the delusions that people are citing as reasons for supporting a "work" culture. Are the people who believe this rhetoric blind to the destruction that is being caused to the Earth by billions of people needing to "make money to live"?
Poachers do not poach because they are too stupid to understand the value of the life they are taking. They are poaching because that's the only way to provide the resources their family needs to survive. The same is true with every type of destructive behavior humanity is practicing in response to economic pressures. Children in mines and sweatshops, farmers burning down rainforests, or fishermen exhausting the endless ocean's bounty.
People need access to basic resources in order to survive and prosper. They need food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. Our monetary economic system CANNOT provide this to everyone, it is built on the scarcity of money, and it distributes this scarcity efficiently through the demand/market system. Until society steps up to the plate and implements a system where these needs are met, we are effectively living in middle age serfdom!
"Civilization" is a society where we recognize the needs of that society, and implement systems to meet those needs. What we have today is a free-market slavery system. You are enslaved to the bank that issues your currency against the "work" you will provide in the future. Your National ID number is your bond number, and your countries credit-worthiness is dependant on your productivity, en masse. Your money is a debt note, owed to those banks, issued to you by your financial reserve system.
Most of the beneficial work performed by the participants of society goes unpaid. Parenting, teaching, volunteering, caring about and helping your friends and neighbors, not vandalizing public spaces, reporting crimes, speaking out about abuses of power and educating your family and friends about social issues.
These things are the best things we do, and they are priceless.
The jobs you get paid to do, are because no one would do them unless they needed the money to survive. Maybe they are the things that didn't need doing in the first place.
I want to suggest that people who believe in this imaginary money system remove their head from their anus and find out what a resource-based economic system looks like, and why it is superior to any type of system that could ever be built through coercion.
The problem is the math don't add up. To give 13k per adult(242M) you need 3.2T. The total us Budget in 2015 was 3.8T so you need to increase taxes by 81%. If you subtract out all the welfare benefits you(615B(16%)) you still need to raise taxes buy 65%.
This should literally always be the top comment until it's explained how to handle the tremendous cost.
Stop paying retail prices for everything. In a market based economy, we need everyone shopping, every week. But, in a resource based economy, we would build things to last longer, and design things that are more efficient. The cost is not the issue, it is the design of the product that is so wasteful. We need waste in this system, it is profitable. I'm sure you"ll ignore me as some quack. Too bad (for you and me), because this is the main problem with our society. Try reading the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy", if you don't understand what I am talking about.