21–30 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
"Simply stating something does not make it a fact." Indeed.
A foster care system is, in my opinion and at least in poor areas of large metros - is a good (and pretty depressing) example of what many people are willing to do for money. To some extend - childcare subsidies demonstrate the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so much that there won't be a labor market, but rather than radical changes to the labor market are accelerating. Two centuries ago, well over 90% of income earners were farmers. Today, it's like 2% and dropping. But unemployment didn't become a more massive problem than it was then. Labor became available for other purposes, enabling the industrial revolution.
Yeah but it's accelerating at such a rate that it's important to look at the endgame which IMO is no labour market. I agree that even before we reach that level the issue is thre and so it will serve as a help for those who are "left behind".
The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens. Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
It's obviously not feasible to promise everyone that indefinitely with no strings attached so long as they turn up in your country and ask for it. Simplest solution is to make it passport based. This particular proposal appears to insist that young people prove they deserve it too...
What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created. I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time. The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income. It's not meant to solve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies. That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those c…
[deleted]
> Simply stating something does not make it a fact.
Your first quote makes it sound as if it was the inevitable outcome.
SOME people. Not all. It's a slippery slope fallacy.
What if the same type of people that try to manipulate the system do it because it seems like the only reasonable way to stay afloat?
It could be possible then that some of them would not have more kids to get more money.
[deleted]
Addressing the implication of breeding for money, I actually prefer the solutions explored in Larry Nivin's main fictional universe. Importantly, in that universe, different regions of human colonization had different limits for births; including un-affiliated areas (space between planets) having unregulated birthrates. For the context of Earth/Terra: I forget if it was one or two children, but for sure, for two pare…
[deleted]
The current system in America provides a disincentive to work. Social programs generally are not considered as income and do not preclude you from being eligible for other social programs (i.e. the benefits stack). This creates the unfortunate situation that some people that don't work at all receive more annual income (in kind) from the government than their working neighbors. It works out to nearly $60k per year in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but it's accelerating at such a rate that it's important to look at the endgame which IMO is no labour market. I agree that even before we reach that level the issue is thre and so it will serve as a help for those who are "left behind".
If that ever happens (which I highly doubt, there is little to no evidence) it is a very long ways off. Hundreds of years at a minimum.
What most people get wrong about a job is that they confuse the human doing them with the job they human is doing.
Most if not all jobs only require you to be a subset of a human to actually be useful. And so there is a general misconception that computers would need a general intelligence to take over a job when in fact most of the jobs we do require only a fraction of our abilities as humans and normally can be broken down in smaller subsets.
What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created. I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time. The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income. It's not meant to solve…
It's not just a way to deal with massive job replacement (by machines)... it's also a sensible policy to remove the poverty traps of unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc. These policies all create an incentive to avoid making money. UBI creates no such incentive - furthermore, it gives people the breathing space to find more productive ways to spend their time than dead-end jobs (such as getting an educat…
It's the wrong question.
UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.
Is that such a bad thing? I'm not even sure if the effect would be significantly different than today's situation, in which you can fall into any addiction you want if you have resources.