31–40 of 169 posts
If your retirement is not self-funded, you likey don't have one. Your future is your responsibility, if you are able. Do it while you can, or grow old without.
Oh yes and everybody should set up their sewage systems and raise their own crops in their own backyards. Society doesn't function like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question is based on a false premise. There is plenty of work, we just haven't figured out how to monetize most of it yet. Mental health, filmmaking, video games, quality food, cultural maintenance events, general caretaking, career development... we're not producing anywhere near the quantity of those things that we actually need. There are lots of reasons why the markets are currently failing to monetize the d…
Maybe I did not phrase it clearly enough, but I know that there is plenty of work, just not paid work. That's why I used the word "jobs". Companies leave the demand for mental health on the table, because the metally ill don't have anything to offer to them in exchange. But I certainly hope that the future is so bright as you describe it.
I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…
We have a peculiar set of beneficiaries of our economic inflation system.
In theory we could select poor people as the winners of economic inflation. In practice it would result in a civil war because the current wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the existing inflation based economic system won't accept being cut off from funds very easily. In the long run they have to be very careful about grabbing pennies in front of a steamroller because if they aren't careful the guillotines will come out.
Demographic changes are relevant. Table #4 implies the percentage of white school children in the UK will be zero in 70 years based on growth rates being linear at 10%/decade and 30% minority today. There is no such thing as magic dirt, and once whites are eliminated from the UK, the landmass will no have "white country" style retirement systems because it'll no longer be a white country. The Rhodesian retirement system is no longer a relevant topic of discussion today in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe does have a retirement system, but no one would confuse it with the soon to be historical UK retirement system. A child in the UK will not be retiring in either the UK or Rhodesian retirement system because the UK of 2010s will not exist in the 2080s, more will be changing than just the retirement system.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes and everybody should set up their sewage systems and raise their own crops in their own backyards. Society doesn't function like that.
That is a good illistration of specialization of labor, but I'm not sure how that related to the OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI is a redistribution expense, that means, the government takes taxes from richer people, and distribute it to everybody. Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants, and by doing so they get entitled into receiving something in proportion to what they paid. Besides it being a pyramid, a UBI scheme where total received is proportional to tota…
> Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants This is news to those who retire and live on investment income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI is very simple if you allow the state to acquire capital and cultivate it in a sovereign wealth fund. Imagine, for example, public ownership of 50% of the most valuable real estate in the country, which is then rented as usual. You don't need sky-high taxes when there's income from capital to distribute.
Using taxes to crowd out investment markets...can't go wrong there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I did not phrase it clearly enough, but I know that there is plenty of work, just not paid work. That's why I used the word "jobs". Companies leave the demand for mental health on the table, because the metally ill don't have anything to offer to them in exchange. But I certainly hope that the future is so bright as you describe it.
It's already paid work for some fraction of forward thinking people - a friend has three income-generating houses, the first of which was financed by virtual coal trading in RuneScape in the early 00's.
What bank will finance the mortgage on his incoming generating properties via 30 year mortgages when almost everyone is unemployed? Does the existing massively overgrown and under automated FIRE sector downscale to only 1% of the population having all the income and wealth? If it doesn't downscale, perhaps it doesn't operate at all, then how will he finance his real estate purchases via loans? He will have to pay cash and instead of 1/3 down on each income generating property he'll have to pay 100% for one property. Or prices will have to collapse by a minimum of 2/3 to clear the market.
His properties are not income generating if the renters have no income. The purpose of the discussion is what do we do when essentially no one has income or net wealth anymore? The phrase incoming generating property means nothing if there's no rent to collect because no one has jobs or income or wealth anymore.
Someone without power today can trust the courts and cops to protect his three properties because "everyone owns property or at least half of us or so". How does that break down when no one has any money? If there's only one landlord in the city who owns almost all property and he asks the cops to lean on him to sell his three houses, or squatters take over and there's no government support, because private property as we know it today is obsolete when no one owns anything, what does he do?
Assuming the above is somehow fixed, lets see if its sustainable via replication. How do you get money from trading runescape coal in 2040 if no one playing games has any money? My kids have no money because they're little kids. Assuming they continue to have no money, how many games of tic tac toe do they need to play to afford three houses each if the net profit off each game played is $0 because no one playing has any money to lose?
The future being unevenly distributed, being a slumlord today in Detroit is kinda like being a suburban landlord in 2030 perhaps, or an urbanite landlord in 2040, assuming you believe in new urbanism which is very popular here. The 50th percentile landlord will impact reality like a bug hitting a windshield long before the 90%th percentile landlord, which is a whole nother topic. Eventually only the top 1% of landlords will be in on the game much like only 1% of the population will have old fashioned jobs or participate in the old fashioned economy via pay and wealth, which brings us back to the original macroeconomic problem. Surely you can't be implying that 99 landlords will rent their 297 houses to the one guy who still has an old fashioned job?
I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…
If you're asking how to fund it in a non-redistributive manner, since the blood has been squeezed from the stone: We have a peculiar set of beneficiaries of our economic inflation system. In theory we could select poor people as the winners of economic inflation. In practice it would result in a civil war because the current wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the existing inflation based economic system won't acce…
I'm feel pretty confident that the chart doesn't suggest what you're saying - but then, I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question is based on a false premise. There is plenty of work, we just haven't figured out how to monetize most of it yet. Mental health, filmmaking, video games, quality food, cultural maintenance events, general caretaking, career development... we're not producing anywhere near the quantity of those things that we actually need. There are lots of reasons why the markets are currently failing to monetize the d…
Maybe I did not phrase it clearly enough, but I know that there is plenty of work, just not paid work. That's why I used the word "jobs". Companies leave the demand for mental health on the table, because the metally ill don't have anything to offer to them in exchange. But I certainly hope that the future is so bright as you describe it.
No, companies leave mental health on the table because a CEO can only manage a handful of labor categories, and there are plenty of healthy people to fill those roles. Mentally ill people could profitably fill other roles but the CEO doesn't have the bandwidth to manage a system of the level of complexity that would be required to support those roles. We need a decentralized system (contractors fulfilling stock HR microcontracts) to release that economic value.
Most CEOs are not even able to intelligently manage the 10-20 stock labor categories they currently staff, let alone the millions of categories we need. I think most managers max out at 5-10 roles.
Where do the jobs for the elderly come from, if even young, healthy people are gradually priced out of their jobs by technology and automation? Right now, good jobs are replaced by bad, underpaid ones. Desperate people are serving burritos to a smaller group of people who are lucky to have the skills necessary in this time of transition. All of them work to aggregate productive capital in the hands of the very few. I…
Sorry, but robbing Peter to pay Paul does not strike me as a viable long term strategy either. Much like the current brain drain from other countries to the West, the reverse could easily occur; the talented and wealthy could leave for other countries and find success there.
A saner approach would be re-defining full-time employment to 35 hours or even 30 hours and vigorously enforcing overtime pay requirements, to spread out employment among more people, and taking strong measures to get the cost of living under control enough that single-income households become viable again, so that people can take care of their families and have more time to rebuild the social bonds of their community.