The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Carl on April 20, 2016, 02:11:06 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027769085
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:01 AM
DetroitSocialist83 (121 posts)
Universal Basic Income (A Break From the Primaries)
What do DUers think about the proposal of a guaranteed basic income? It is being experimented with in Europe, Canada, Africa, and India. Notable economists support it. Could this be a way to simplify the state, and also provide income as automation begins to take over more of the economy? I could also see this as a way to empower traditionally oppressed people. What say you?
http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=6122e62da2e8b09f297411ccf&id=f35428a463
A free shit thread! :hyper:
Response to DetroitSocialist83 (Original post)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:05 AM
Star Member Recursion (47,704 posts)
1. The only option, given the robot future
We need to get over the idea that work is necessary for most people.
Response to Recursion (Reply #1)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:45 AM
Star Member Warren Stupidity (47,507 posts)
3. Yup. People don't quite understand how rapidly we are
approaching a post work system.
You useless ****s were post work from the day you were spawned.
Response to DetroitSocialist83 (Original post)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:04 AM
Meldread (3,956 posts)
5. I support UBI 100%.
People, especially in the United States, need to really get over the idea that an individuals value is somehow magically tied to how hard and how much they work. There is no serious research that says that people work less under a UBI system, but what it does do is empower workers--especially workers doing shitty jobs--to be able to walk away if necessary. The fundamental fact is that if someone controls your paycheck, and that is the only means of supporting yourself and your family, then you are effectively a surf. You don't have the power or ability to bargain with them for fair wages for your labor or anything else. Your strength and value waxes and wanes with the fluctuations of the labor market. UBI gives workers the ability to walk away if necessary.
Additionally, UBI does not punish those who need assistance FOR going to work. The current system punishes people who want to work, but working more and earning more could jeopardize their current benefits--putting them in a worse position.
If people believe that all individuals are entitled to a basic standard of living, the UBI is the inevitable solution to that problem. As others have mentioned as we move more and more toward a post-work future, with increasing efficiency from technology, this becomes the only real result that does not cause an absolute collapse in the global and national economy.
Eat shit and die. :bird:
Response to DetroitSocialist83 (Original post)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 01:14 PM
Star Member FLPanhandle (5,855 posts)
14. I have some family members who would quit instantly if this was enacted.
I'm sure there are many thousands of others who would quit working too.
It seems like one of those nice ideas in theory, but will fail when implemented.
Ya think?
Response to DetroitSocialist83 (Original post)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 01:30 PM
Star Member Amimnoch (1,862 posts)
18. K&R! It is a very real travesty that we don't.
With today's wonders of automation, mass production, and technology the whole mindset of everyone must work to live is fast growing, and imo already somewhat outdated.
Especially as the largest economy in the world, why is it so bad to ensure that EVERYONE has reasonable housing, reasonable utilities, food on the table, clean drinking water, access to or provided basic transportation???
Personally, I'm not really pro- or anti-capitalist, or pro/anti socialist. I think the BEST economy is a targeted one.. the one litmus test for all industries should be: "What benefits the majority of the citizens?"
To me, industries like banking, medicine, medical, Oil & gas.. socialize them fully.
Food services/production/distribution, auto manufacturing, Telecommunications/broadcast networks/ energy/power distribution, real estate/housing markets, water, waste management - a Hybrid of socialization (enough to ensure that all of these and other quality of life critical type products and services are absolutely available to EVERYONE.
Tech, manufacturing, luxury, entertainment, and other "optional" products/services - all out capitalism with just enough regulation to ensure fair competition.
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Rot in hell you ****ing parasites.
-
Does this so called UBI require random drug testing to be able to continue to receive benefits? :stoner::-)
-
I'm sure there are many thousands of others who would quit working too.
Thousands? You'll get a million, just in Chicago.
You idiots do realize that the condition of this is that ALL other forms of Welfare are eliminated. Completely.
....AND the bloated, (D)emocRAT employment agency bureaucracy that runs it, right?
Right?
-
Does this so called UBI require random drug testing to be able to continue to receive benefits? :stoner::-)
The way they're going to try it in Finland, there are no restrictions, whatsoever, on what you can spend it on. So, I would say, no. Finland is, however, going to eliminate ALL other forms of Welfare and the bureaucracy that runs it.
A country with the population of, less than Cook County. ::)
-
Personally, I'm not really pro- or anti-capitalist, or pro/anti socialist. I think the BEST economy is a targeted one.. the one litmus test for all industries should be: "What benefits the majority of the citizens?"
To me, industries like banking, medicine, medical, Oil & gas.. socialize them fully.
You're an idiot.....
:thatsright:
-
Notable economists support it.
Just who are these "notable economists"? I can't think of any right of hand.
-
Just who are these "notable economists"? I can't think of any right of hand.
Krug man most likely
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
Especially as the largest economy in the world, why is it so bad to ensure that EVERYONE has reasonable housing, reasonable utilities, food on the table, clean drinking water, access to or provided basic transportation???
What a cruel world this DUmmy describes!
During the jug-eared muslim's first campaign, at the peak of unicorn-skittles planning, DUmmies always included free vacations on the menu of free stuff.
-
Meldread (3,957 posts)
32. You are right, the devil is in the details. Here is where I shake out.
I'll try and address both of your points.
First, the details. UBI would be offered to everyone eighteen years or older, as well as those individuals declared independent at a younger age. UBI would not be offered to children or for additional children, as having children is a choice that the government should not be in the business of promoting or discouraging. This is the reason we also advocate for choice and easy access to contraception so individuals and families can make those decisions for themselves.
There would be no means testing for UBI. It would be offered to everyone. This would be done because we know that when a social service like this is offered as welfare, those who don't receive it fight against it. Contrast it with how social security works, and the huge popular support it receives.
Benefits would be based upon a national living standard, and then adjusted slightly (only upward) based on location. There may be some additional rules applied to additional increased payments based on location--for example, giving proof that you've lived there for a certain amount of time. I am slightly concerned here about distorting housing markets, so this would be something better worked out in careful detail.
UBI would negate the need for social security (it would essentially replace it and be much more money) as well as SNAP benefits. There may be some other minor programs that would be redundant with UBI, but we would still need to move toward a Single Payer or Universal Healthcare System. In the meantime, until we get there, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, and other such programs would remain in place.
I believe this answered all of your questions from the first point.
Now, to your second point regarding work. My position here is simple: I don't want individuals to be obligated to work, especially in horrible low paying jobs. I want work to be a choice, and I want workers to be empowered to bargain with their employers. If someone decides to drop out of the labor market and spend their days surfing on the beach, then that is their choice--a choice I would support. This also is beneficial to those who are interested in entering into the labor market, as it makes labor more scarce, and puts them in a stronger bargaining position. One of the big fears of UBI is that EVERYONE will drop out of the workforce, or at least large numbers of people will. This hasn't been proven to be the case in areas where it has been tried. Although there were some labor force losses, the bulk of them were people who dropped out to go back to school to obtain a higher education. Very few people actually chose to drop out of the labor force entirely. The other thing of note was that there was also a reasonable number of people who decided to work fewer hours and spend more time with their families.
My point was really two-fold: it didn't lead to the worst fears people always predict with UBI, and even in the few marginal cases where it did--it actually benefits those in the labor market, as it makes their labor more valuable. We want work to be a choice, and we want those who choose to work to be able to bargain fairly for their labor.
Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #14)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:16 PM
Star Member TexasBushwhacker (5,896 posts)
28. It would make sense for those making close to minimum
wage to quit. And when they do, the Walmarts of the world would have to pay more to keep their workers. Employers would have to pay better and treat their employees better to keep them working. UBI, in effect, becomes a competing employer. Couple UBI with universal healthcare and people could work as much or as little as they want. As it is, we have people in their 50s and 60s who are working full time jobs as much for health insurance as for income. As automation takes over, there will be fewer jobs. That is a fact.
Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #14)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:49 PM
haele (6,602 posts)
30. Well, look at it this way. If they would quit instantly, the job would be better without them.
And open to someone who wanted that job and will do it well without the fear of falling into an abyss of homelessness, poor health, and poor nutrition.
Either a UBI or "Make Work" where someone is just riding a desk, a driver's seat or a shovel for 30 - 40 hours a week to keep a roof over their heads and food in the pantry.
Most people are average, with average skills skewed to a hunter-gatherer mindset. They just want to be happy with themselves, their families and friends, and live somewhat comfortably with hobbies they are skilled at to occupy themselves - and that's the level of "success" that they're going to work. THAT'S NOT FAILURE TO SIMPLY WANT TO BE HAPPY WITH ONE'S SELF. Constantly competing to a point that is almost above and beyond someone's capabilities pursuing money, power, or fame is not the norm.
The average person is not going to be able to successfully compete in a "gig economy" - they can barely compete in today's job markets as it is.
The days of a good factory or retail job that can supply a living wage for a relatively happy lifetime with little competition are gone. What do you do with an over-abundance of somewhat skilled people who just want to be happy, not change the world or the reality around them?
It will come down to a UBI, with universal health care, subsidized food, housing, and infrastructure. Or some sort of CCC-type make-work at a certain wage level, which basically does the same thing. If not this, then I fear for this country as the ability to be secure slips away from a majority of the population, and we end up with a plantation economy ruled by an iron- fisted rentier-based oligarchy that plays favorites so it can maintain an illusion of democratic.
On edit - a UBI will allow a lot of small businesses to develop, as people will be more likely jump at the ability to turn their hobbies and interests into a business to bring in a little more for the luxuries because they wouldn't be afraid of failing and being left with nothing.
If I knew I would always make enough to live and take care of my family, with a home and health care guaranteed me, I would quit the rat race and start my own business - or several businesses. Or go back to school and get a PhD is something totally frivolous, like medieval farming-based economies.
Haele
I grow to detest these rats more and more each day. :banghead:
-
Just who are these "notable economists"? I can't think of any right of hand.
More than likely Milton Friedman who tossed around the idea of a "Negative Income Tax." But what he presented is nothing like what the primitives want, which is no work and all play.
From wiki:
"Various different models of negative income tax have been proposed.
One model was proposed by Milton Friedman. In this version, a specified proportion of unused deductions or allowances would be refunded to the taxpayer. If, for a family of four the amount of allowances came out to $10,000, and the subsidy rate was 50% (the rate recommended by Friedman), and the family earned $6,000, the family would receive $2,000, because it left $4,000 of allowances unused, and therefore qualifies for $2,000, half that amount. Friedman feared that subsidy rates any higher would lessen the incentive to obtain employment. He also warned that the negative income tax, as an addition to the "ragbag" of welfare and assistance programs, would only worsen the problem of bureaucracy and waste. Instead, he argued, the negative income tax should immediately replace all other welfare and assistance programs on the way to a completely laissez-faire society where all welfare is privately administered. The negative income tax has come up in one form or another in Congress, but Friedman eventually opposed it because it came packaged with other undesirable elements antithetical to the efficacy of the negative income tax. Friedman preferred to have no income tax at all, but said he did not think it was politically feasible at that time to eliminate it, so he suggested this as a less harmful income tax scheme."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
.
-
If someone decides to drop out of the labor market and spend their days surfing on the beach, then that is their choice--a choice I would support.
This was Nancy Pelosi's rationale for passing ObamaCare. She's another member of the mooching class.
-
Meldread (3,957 posts)
32. You are right, the devil is in the details. Here is where I shake out.
I'll try and address both of your points.
First, the details. UBI would be offered to everyone eighteen years or older, as well as those individuals declared independent at a younger age. UBI would not be offered to children or for additional children, as having children is a choice that the government should not be in the business of promoting or discouraging. This is the reason we also advocate for choice and easy access to contraception so individuals and families can make those decisions for themselves.
There would be no means testing for UBI. It would be offered to everyone. This would be done because we know that when a social service like this is offered as welfare, those who don't receive it fight against it. Contrast it with how social security works, and the huge popular support it receives.
Benefits would be based upon a national living standard, and then adjusted slightly (only upward) based on location. There may be some additional rules applied to additional increased payments based on location--for example, giving proof that you've lived there for a certain amount of time. I am slightly concerned here about distorting housing markets, so this would be something better worked out in careful detail.
UBI would negate the need for social security (it would essentially replace it and be much more money) as well as SNAP benefits. There may be some other minor programs that would be redundant with UBI, but we would still need to move toward a Single Payer or Universal Healthcare System. In the meantime, until we get there, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, and other such programs would remain in place.
I believe this answered all of your questions from the first point.
Now, to your second point regarding work. My position here is simple: I don't want individuals to be obligated to work, especially in horrible low paying jobs. I want work to be a choice, and I want workers to be empowered to bargain with their employers. If someone decides to drop out of the labor market and spend their days surfing on the beach, then that is their choice--a choice I would support. This also is beneficial to those who are interested in entering into the labor market, as it makes labor more scarce, and puts them in a stronger bargaining position. One of the big fears of UBI is that EVERYONE will drop out of the workforce, or at least large numbers of people will. This hasn't been proven to be the case in areas where it has been tried. Although there were some labor force losses, the bulk of them were people who dropped out to go back to school to obtain a higher education. Very few people actually chose to drop out of the labor force entirely. The other thing of note was that there was also a reasonable number of people who decided to work fewer hours and spend more time with their families.
My point was really two-fold: it didn't lead to the worst fears people always predict with UBI, and even in the few marginal cases where it did--it actually benefits those in the labor market, as it makes their labor more valuable. We want work to be a choice, and we want those who choose to work to be able to bargain fairly for their labor.
Question. How f*cking high do you have to be to come up with this crap and more importantly how do you remember the details when you return to earth? :o
-
Meldread (3,957 posts)
32. You are right, the devil is in the details. Here is where I shake out.
I'll try and address both of your points.
First, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme; gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme, gimme, gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme; gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.
Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme! Gimme: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.
Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.
Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme...gimme.
I believe this answered all of your questions from the first point.
Now, to your second point regarding work. My position here is simple: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme! Gimme: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme! Gimme: gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.
My point was really two-fold: gimme, and gimme.
Free Mumia.
-
Once again, BFDU . . . H5!
-
I think this guaranteed free income is a great idea.
Like everything else, we should force Mexico to pay for it.