191–200 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money (tax) will be pulled regardless. It's the cost of doing business. You should be producing value because producing value make you happier. Basic income enable both type people to be happy.
> You should be producing value because producing value make you happier That is your opinion, and to some degree it’s an opinion I agree with. That doesn’t mean the opinion has any basis in reality however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And while doing that, cut the bureaucracy and stigma of having to continuously apply for welfare, food stamps etc. Not that this would offsets the cost of basic income. If we picture a dystopian future where due to the rise of automation, increases in population, lack of education and ability, ~90% of people cannot realistically work in a productive jobs, I think it's a good time to experiment now what and how to kee…
I always think of Star Trek. It isn't really explored in depth but there isn't money and people don't have to work, transporter rationing is alluded to though. I guess in a world where everything can be made in a replicator, 'employment' becomes untenable. You still need some way of rationing scarce resources, and allowing people to 'vote' for what they want more of though.
I'll take scarcity, thank you.
This is a weird title. The article says that the people on basic income were equally likely to find a job as those who were not receiving it. I was expecting that basic income might make people less motivated to find jobs, and that would have been an issue. But this result seems like a positive outcome for UBI.
> It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits.
So I'm curious what affect that had vs the general population's approach to finding employment. Particularly young people who may have never had a job before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we are efficient enough in our use of land, the demand relative to the supply will shrink enough that it's no longer scarce. I suppose lots of people enjoy owning their own land-- large tracts of it in fact, and not sharing it with anyone. That's a little tougher to conceptualize as post-scarcity as there's a limit to making land enjoyment more efficient with advanced technology. But in a world where other resourc…
Not really. Even if we triple land use efficiency, population growth will increase the demand to compensate
I don't think the volume of land will ever be an issue for humans, but I think that land will never be equally valued.
It's a general misunderstanding that Basic Income is some sort of job program, it's not. It's a job replacement program for a society where there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. Basic Income should provide fundamental living cost support in a society that has no jobs so there is no "but" in there. Edit: Keep in mind we already have Basic Income it's just conditional. UBI is di…
It's neither (at least, exclusively) a jobs program nor a jobs replacement program, but it has elements of both; it makes more work available (when replacing minimum wages as a floor-setting system), improves capacity for labor market realignment via retraining, and better addresses the needs of those who, even with that, cannot find adequate work.
UBI is based on the assumption there will be no jobs because no one can deliver better value than technology rather than just a small job market. We already have the other Conditional Basic Income which is probably optimal as long as there is a solid jobmarket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Infuse the the aggregate market in an area with X dollars UBI (designed sanely) doesn't involve any net infusion of dollars (which would require government borrowing or printing money to distribute), it is paid for from tax revenues; it's a downstream redistribution, not an infusion.
Perhaps my wording was poor. I'm thinking of geographical regions, not the economy as a whole. Thus, despite a net zero effect globally, any redistributive effects would be unevenly allocated to various regions. And it's easy to imagine certain areas -- in particular, poorer ones -- having a higher income per capita of renters in particular. Toy example: a population of 100, with one billionaire who owns their house…
If there is, in a market (of whatever scale, and whether it's housing rental or anything else), a monopoly or coordinated oligopoly that is abused so as to absorb all income growth, that's a problem calling for government intervention independent of UBI.
Maybe these exist in some housing markets, but if they do it's an orthogonal problem to UBI that is just as important to correct even if we don't adopt UBI. It's not, in any way, an argument against UBI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's neither (at least, exclusively) a jobs program nor a jobs replacement program, but it has elements of both; it makes more work available (when replacing minimum wages as a floor-setting system), improves capacity for labor market realignment via retraining, and better addresses the needs of those who, even with that, cannot find adequate work.
I think that's the wrong premise. UBI is based on the assumption there will be no jobs because no one can deliver better value than technology rather than just a small job market. We already have the other Conditional Basic Income which is probably optimal as long as there is a solid jobmarket.
No, it is not. UBI, under a variety of names, is an idea much older than, and not at all dependent on, the idea of a situation where there are no jobs.
It's a general misunderstanding that Basic Income is some sort of job program, it's not. It's a job replacement program for a society where there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. Basic Income should provide fundamental living cost support in a society that has no jobs so there is no "but" in there. Edit: Keep in mind we already have Basic Income it's just conditional. UBI is di…
> there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. And yet the US has full employment. Could it be that Finland lacks jobs for some reason other than technology?
The US has “full employment” only under a definition of “full employment” that allows significant involuntary under- and un-employment to exist while still applying the label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there been any exploration of a version of Basic Income in exchange for community service? There's a virtually endless amount of unskilled work that could be done to improve the environment and people's lives.
I think this is a great idea. I have also been pitching it in conversations with people who oppose UBI for years and it is generally very well received by them. Unfortunately I am unaware if this has actually been implemented anywhere.
Congratulations, you're Juicero.