Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's believed to be cheaper to house the homeless than to leave them on the streets. [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/housing-first-homel... ] And there's plenty of housing, just not really in places that are convenient to jobs. If you didn't need a job, that becomes less of a problem. So giving people enough money for a secure housing and food situation--somewhere, anywhere--strictly decreases suffer…
If you consider UBI as simply replacing jobs, that works. However, the reason UBI works is because it allows people to spend their life doing things that are valuable but wouldn't make a living wage.
Guaranteed Minimum What?
421–430 of 446 posts
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I worked in the movie box, that was not at all true. People would come in and ask about the movie. How long was it, whether it was any good, should they see another one instead? We gave them real answers. Just because you have a minimum wage job doesn't mean you're a bump on a log. If you've lost sight of the value of basic human interaction with anyone not baked into your caste, I pity you, even if you are in t…
I would find this super annoying while waiting in line to buy tickets. If that's a service that makes sense to have theaters can always keep it. One staffed line for people that want to chit chat and automated kiosks for people like me who just want to buy a ticket.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#423> Humans are agressively being eliminated from as many business models as possible. Well that's true, where they don't add value. What's the difference between the case of getting movie tickets and your waiter at a fancy restaurant? One of them is practically a useless annoyance, and the other one is part of the experience. Someone in a movie box isn't going to tell you about the movie, or have a conversation about i…
"On the other hand, the fancy waiter will make recommendations. " The fancy waiter will recommend whatever the owner of the restaurant wants him to recommend, because that is his actual job. He is employed to maximize the dollar value of food and liquor sold. Now, there are limits to this. A good restauranteur isn't going to sell you inedible crap, and a good waiter isn't going to recommend it, because that will hurt…
This is a limited way of looking at the value of a waiter — I think this is a common misconception. A good waiter knows to listen to what you want and make recommendations based on that. Anytime a waiter recommends mostly or only the most expensive things, I trust them less and they lose the potential to be a great waiter even if the service is otherwise good.
The waiter is not really working for the restaurant because the amount of their pay that comes from the restaurant directly is very low. In a restaurant with tips that comprises most of the waiter's income, and since the amount you tip is voluntary, really the server is working for the customer to earn a good tip.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would introduction of UBI result in job creation?
Without speaking to the net effect, a possible mechanism of job creation is increased demand for goods.
In the modern economy an increased demand for goods benefits very select entities - mainly a Chinese manufacturer, a Danish shipper, and Seattle-based Amazon.com. There's some job creation to the effect that a UPS guy needs to be hired to deliver those goods, but middlemen are likely to be squeezed on margins, while the value creation is taking place abroad.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best explanations I've heard effectively make the assertion that a country's land is collectively owned by its citizens. Its citizens can then charge rent (via taxation) to individuals or corporations using the land. UBI is the distribution of that rent.
In what way is the land collectively owned? The business would show a deed and prove they already own the land. Also, if I already own a house privately, I would pay the commons rent on what I already own? This seems to pervert the notion of ownership.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ratings and reviews on my smartphone are often paid for or are artificially inflated by anyone willing to pay review sites or reputation management firms.
I think you just need to learn to interpret the numbers. For a big Hollywood movie, anything sub-8.0 on imdb in the week after release (where the shill votes still aren't outweighed by the general population votes) is bad. Just for this week, this rule of thumb tells me for example that the "Alien: Covenant" is probably not worth watching, and "The Circle" is a disaster.
I'm not sure how I can learn to interpret something that's been manipulated by people with vested interest to promote their product or put down a competitor's.
The value from these sites stem from actual consumer ratings, not bots or the services themselves changing ratings.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Speak for yourself. There is nothing more aggravating to me than self-checkout, it is slow, ... " Oh, man. I never use the self-checkout. It's part of the invisible work movement--stuff someone used to be paid to do for you, now you do yourself. Same thing with pumping your own gas. I miss Oregon, for how there was always someone to pump your gas for you. Is gas cheaper here in Washington, where you have to do it yo…
Huh? The pumping is automated, all you need to do is place the nooze and push a button? It seems crazy (like 5-star hotel level of service crazy) to have people in full time employment to do just that.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
I accept your point if you show me the evidence that supports your claim that we are eliminating jobs at a rate faster than before. To give an example for you to think about, the machine gun eliminated more jobs for infantry than we have for cashiers. As veterans came home from WW II and 'mustered out' we provided the GI bill to train them in skills other than soldering. This provided an economy that transitioned a s…
The share of U.S. economic output that's paid out in wages in at the lowest point since the government started keeping track of it. In 1964 AT&T was worth $267 billion in today's dollars and employed 758,611 people. Google is worth $370 billion but has only about 55,000 employees -- less than a tenth the size of AT&T's workforce in its heyday. We're going to get self-driving cars in our lifetimes and the number one j…
> The share of U.S. economic output that's paid out in wages in at the lowest
> point since the government started keeping track of it. In 1964 AT&T was worth
> $267 billion in today's dollars and employed 758,611 people. Google is worth
> $370 billion but has only about 55,000 employees -- less than a tenth the size
> of AT&T's workforce in its heyday.
I think this might be an interesting statistic to look at but I can't find it. I can find Gross Domestic Income (GDI) and the GDP which the Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov) seems to think GDI has been about ~50% of GDP for a long time. I'm also having a bit of a challenge evaluating your numbers, yes Google has a high market cap relative to its workforce, but its contribution to GDP is only about $90B/year (not the Market Cap, but the revenue) and its 55,000 employees accounted for about a third of that. So its pumping into the economy. AT&T had revenue of $164B, not quite double that, and higher employment costs as well. It certainly has been remarkable how much money Google, Apple, and a small number of companies have pulled out of the economy and into cash. Depending on how you measure it you can make an argument that is the entire source of unemployment in the current US economy. I expect at some point various governments will note this impact and construct the Tech equivalent of 'windfall profits tax' (maybe 'unproductive capital tax' or something) in order to liberate it into the economy. > If you had a functional body, you could get a good job.
If you are saying that you only needed a functional body to get a good job, that has not been true for at least 50 years. The amount of education and training needed to be employable has gone up steadily as new job creation happened in industries that were growing.> I think right now we have an absolute glut of educated people;
We need to be careful about terms, there are many people who have college degrees for which there is no career path other than perhaps teaching people who would like to get that same degree. They are 'educated' and essentially unemployable because the number of teaching positions is small relative to the available candidates. But working it backwards from the job to the employee does work, there are unfilled jobs available for people where there is also training available to teach people to do those jobs. Some are 'college' jobs and require STEM training, some are trades jobs and require skills training.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that work is very important for mental health. I disagree that the work has to be in form of a paying job. With UBI I could choose to work on open source, or create art or clean up my neighborhood. Without UBI I have to sell my lifetime and work on things that don't really interested me.
I can see GDP dropping massively.
Re: Guaranteed Minimum What?
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main barrier to UBI is that the same groups in the population that are so in favour of it are also fiercely determined immigration must be open. And guess what happens to the first country to say at the same time "anyone can come here" and "we'll give anyone living here (not just a limited closed trial scheme) $40,000 per yer no-questions-asked". It may just be a transient effect (things might even out steady-sta…
You'd want to increase the level of income slowly over time so you can deal with problems like this as they arise. I don't think anyone's proposing an immediate $40k-per-year no-questions-asked grant to all residents.
Otherwise, the costs add up fast, but the impact does not. eg, even picking a smaller country than the US -- the UK has 70 million people; giving them £14 per year would be a £1bn item in the budget but £14 would not have visible impact to society-as-a-whole, and would be cancelled quickly as an unaffordable indulgence.
It's happened before recently -- eg, the UK's Child Trust Fund policy gave every child born a one-off £250 investment gift (a relatively small sum but with a multiplier effect as it would grow over time and prompt relatives to add to the account). The £250 from the government was cancelled within six years as unaffordable. As the benefits only get seen later (when the children grow up), there's a valley of death for the policy where the cost of it kills it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Trust_Fund
Curiously, Iain Duncan Smith's "universal credit" seems about the closest governments have come to a national scheme headed towards being a basic income (or at least a negative income tax), with the idea of at least first eliminating the benefits eligibility cliffs that existed in the system. But it's not been plain sailing, and again started being taken apart before it could be rolled out or "got right". (Any government can be expected to get it wrong first, you just hope they'll get it right later.) So has comparatively little likelihood of growing to be a universal basic income or negative income tax.