[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51619263]You'd have to actually get rich people to pay taxes to fund it and good luck with that.[/QUOTE]
And this is why we're more likely to have a total collapse of the poor, working, and middle classes, than we are to instate UBI.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51619348]And this is why we're more likely to have a total collapse of the poor, working, and middle classes, than we are to instate UBI.[/QUOTE]
We made the rich pay a 93% tax rate during the great depression and almost had a flat-out wealth cap, it's pretty surprising what change an organized and militant working class can accomplish. Though modern day America... when you compare our labor laws to basically any western European country you'll see how docile we are now.
[QUOTE=ironman17;51617386]One thought I had would probably involve somewhat of an overhaul of how things worked. In essence, goods and services would be divided into two categories: necessity and amenity.
[B]Necessities[/B] would include all the things that humans need to [U]survive[/U] and maintain our bodies, such as proper nutritious foods, suitable housing, electricity, a reliable supply of clean water, access to simple medicines, toiletries and cleaning products, etc. Folks relying on benefits would be supplied with a measured monthly "salary" of "N-stamps" on a case by case basis, an independent pseudo-currency that cannot be converted into other currencies, and the household would spend their stamps to buy all they need to keep surviving. Essentially they'd be food stamps, only extended to paying for other essential services.
[B]Amenities[/B] on the other hand are things that we need to [U]live[/U] a happy life, basically everything that isn't a necessity and help us occupy our time. The benefits salary would include a small amount of regular money for purchasing amenities, sort of a "here's a little something, buy yourself something nice", but it wouldn't be enough for people to get ALL of the things they want. For that, you'd need to get yourself a job and earn your keep, getting more money to save up for all the things you want.
This way, one's needs would be catered to, but they would be left wanting for more, and would pursue a job not to simply stay alive, but to earn money for what they want.
D'you think it could work? It's far from perfect, and there's a lot of stuff in the way of it becoming a thing, but I imagine that setting up and maintaining the new benefits itself would open up a bunch of jobs in itself. They'd need a fair number of accountants and the like to sort out benefits for millions of people, after all.[/QUOTE]
Real life goes F2P complete with premium currency
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51619378]We made the rich pay a 93% tax rate during the great depression and almost had a flat-out wealth cap, it's pretty surprising what change an organized and militant working class can accomplish. Though modern day America... when you compare our labor laws to basically any western European country you'll see how docile we are now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but right now they're the richest any class has ever been in human history. Good luck reigning them in with anything short of a violent revolt. If there's ever a time when that happens, it'll be when the poor, working, and middle class collapse. Money can only float to the top for so long.
With the rise of the gig economy, automation and self driving cars we will have to focus taxing businesses and the absurdly wealthy for a UBI to work, and we will need it if we don't want to see a global collapse of the world economy.
If no one has money no one buys anything, businesses lose all profits and go bankrupt and everyone starves to death- the end.
UBI avoids that and allows people to work part time jobs without worry of being impoverished and will potentially create more jobs.
UBI just has to be enough to cover living expenses.
[QUOTE=goon165;51616867]Well with a combination of jobs moving out of first world countries and automation promptly removing them entirely in some cases this more or less has to happen eventually or everyone is going to starve to death.
Here's to the future folks.[/QUOTE]
Or just have a trade/skill and there is no problem.
Its only the untalented jobs that wasters work that are moving away.
[QUOTE=ironman17;51617386]One thought I had would probably involve somewhat of an overhaul of how things worked. In essence, goods and services would be divided into two categories: necessity and amenity.
[B]Necessities[/B] would include all the things that humans need to [U]survive[/U] and maintain our bodies, such as proper nutritious foods, suitable housing, electricity, a reliable supply of clean water, access to simple medicines, toiletries and cleaning products, etc. Folks relying on benefits would be supplied with a measured monthly "salary" of "N-stamps" on a case by case basis, an independent pseudo-currency that cannot be converted into other currencies, and the household would spend their stamps to buy all they need to keep surviving. Essentially they'd be food stamps, only extended to paying for other essential services.
[B]Amenities[/B] on the other hand are things that we need to [U]live[/U] a happy life, basically everything that isn't a necessity and help us occupy our time. The benefits salary would include a small amount of regular money for purchasing amenities, sort of a "here's a little something, buy yourself something nice", but it wouldn't be enough for people to get ALL of the things they want. For that, you'd need to get yourself a job and earn your keep, getting more money to save up for all the things you want.
This way, one's needs would be catered to, but they would be left wanting for more, and would pursue a job not to simply stay alive, but to earn money for what they want.
D'you think it could work? It's far from perfect, and there's a lot of stuff in the way of it becoming a thing, but I imagine that setting up and maintaining the new benefits itself would open up a bunch of jobs in itself. They'd need a fair number of accountants and the like to sort out benefits for millions of people, after all.[/QUOTE]
That would be expensive, inefficient, bureaucratic and opressive system, which would bar (atleast make substantially harder) local residents for forming own businesess for their needs and thefore creating jobs and for even supporting local business due difficulties of converting N-stamps to actual money. Then basically their services can only be supplied by major corporations which can handle the required burearcy of converting N-stamps to money. This means that the "fate" of the people living under the system is determined by outside forces where they themselves can do very little for their lives (besides finding a decent job). And if those outside forces fails to fulfill their function, well, it sucks.
That is, at it's worst, more or less making the people to live under conditions similar to opressive communist regime.
The more we can afford giving away gratuitous money, the faster the economy can grow due grass roots level entrepreneuralism and increased consumption.
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;51619736]Its only the untalented jobs that wasters work that are moving away.[/QUOTE]
Right, it's only the jobs that a significant portion of lower and working class people rely on. No big deal right? We'll be fine with tens of millions of jobless, just sweep 'em under the rug and call it a day.
[QUOTE=Fourier;51619258]UBI would get paid out of taxes, not out of money printing machines, so no inflation.[/QUOTE]
Inflation means a general increase in prices. Printing money isn't the only thing that can cause it.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;51619785]Inflation means a general increase in prices. Printing money isn't the only thing that can cause it.[/QUOTE]
During times of high unemployment and income inequality inflation (not hyper) would be good thing, forcing people to invest their money and thus creating jobs.
Deflation in turn would be suicidal for the economy and pave road for potential dictators.
[QUOTE=oskutin;51619796]During times of high unemployment and income inequality inflation (not hyper) would be good thing, forcing people to invest their money and thus creating jobs.
Deflation in turn would be suicidal for the economy and pave road for potential dictators.[/QUOTE]
Everything is too expensive, so making everything more expensive will fix it?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51619826]Everything is too expensive, so making everything more expensive will fix it?[/QUOTE]
If the problem is funds concentrating into one point, then (the rich's) responsibility is to invest the funds. And funds gradually losing it's value gives good incentives for that. For the people living from hand to mouth, it's not that bad as their salary/benefits raises along the inflation.
Deflation would cause the funds to concentrate more to the top without making investing more attractive. And that will cause negative feedback loop.
[QUOTE=Symwck;51617088]I've seen people argue that UBI isn't feasible because it's too expensive, but they still leave automation unaddressed.
If not UBI, what can else be done?[/QUOTE]
Get a job and stop being lazy, that's how some people see it. If you can't find a job, it's your own fault and nobody else's.
[QUOTE=Omali;51619884]Get a job and stop being lazy, that's how some people see it. If you can't find a job, it's your own fault and nobody else's.[/QUOTE]
Only in ideal situation, where are all the wealth of individual is well deserved, that is true.
But we're far from ideal situation, where even hard working population can be artifically poor.
At it's worst it can be possible that the rich is lazy and stupid, and among the poor can be many
hardworking and intelligent persons, and in that case...
[QUOTE=Omali;51619884]Get a job and stop being lazy, that's how some people see it. If you can't find a job, it's your own fault and nobody else's.[/QUOTE]
It's even worse when you get the lazy scrounger rhetoric from people who also often blame the lack of jobs on someone else when it suits them.
[i] "There are no jobs going because the fucking immigrants steal them, but you shouldn't get benefits if you are unemployed because everyone without a job is just a lazy scrounger." [/i]
[QUOTE=Bertie;51618392]Why would giving them basic income improve employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.[/QUOTE]
Those who receive benefits for being unemployed don't want to risk losing it. And now they won't lose it. I think this is the only positive thing about this.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;51618548]More money in circulation.[/QUOTE]
More money in circulation without more product in circulation means inflation.
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Symwck;51617088]I've seen people argue that UBI isn't feasible because it's too expensive, but they still leave automation unaddressed.
If not UBI, what can else be done?[/QUOTE]
This argument is as old as first textile weaving machines. So that's around 200 years. The steam engines and increase of machinery thanks to which you didn't have to make every single thing by hand didn't destroy the job market.
Then in 1960s "computers were replacing men" and everyone was supposed to lose their job too. Well that didn't happen either.
Until we make machines that can do their own maintenance, produce themselves, and design new models, you're not going to get the problem you are talking about. And once we do get to this point, the loss of jobs is not going to be a primary concern because we've just created skynet.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51617284]If history repeats itself (and it does because humans are predictable) this actually could lead to another "humanism" era. And that would be fantastic for humanity.[/QUOTE]
Star Trek is an instructional manual
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51621513]This argument is as old as first textile weaving machines. So that's around 200 years. The steam engines and increase of machinery thanks to which you didn't have to make every single thing by hand didn't destroy the job market.
Then in 1960s "computers were replacing men" and everyone was supposed to lose their job too. Well that didn't happen either.
Until we make machines that can do their own maintenance, produce themselves, and design new models, you're not going to get the problem you are talking about. And once we do get to this point, the loss of jobs is not going to be a primary concern because we've just created skynet.[/QUOTE]
How can unemployment not go up with automation when the very reason automation is sought after is because companies do not have to pay as many people with it?
Yeah sure you need to employ mechanics and engineers to do it but if that brought as many jobs as it removed there would be no point in automating things.
Yeah sure it'll probably happen gradually, but it's certainly not going to get any better.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51621513]Those who receive benefits for being unemployed don't want to risk losing it. And now they won't lose it. I think this is the only positive thing about this.
More money in circulation without more product in circulation means inflation.
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
This argument is as old as first textile weaving machines. So that's around 200 years. The steam engines and increase of machinery thanks to which you didn't have to make every single thing by hand didn't destroy the job market.
Then in 1960s "computers were replacing men" and everyone was supposed to lose their job too. Well that didn't happen either.
Until we make machines that can do their own maintenance, produce themselves, and design new models, you're not going to get the problem you are talking about. And once we do get to this point, the loss of jobs is not going to be a primary concern because we've just created skynet.[/QUOTE]
Cmon, we have drones that get stuff in-front of your house. We have self-driving cars. This time is different, and jobs that you speak of will be needed but will be highly specialized math&engineering stuff. What should people that don't have those skills (and will not want to do it) do?
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51621619]How can unemployment not go up with automation when the very reason automation is sought after is because companies do not have to pay as many people with it?
Yeah sure you need to employ mechanics and engineers to do it but if that brought as many jobs as it removed there would be no point in automating things.
Yeah sure it'll probably happen gradually, but it's certainly not going to get any better.[/QUOTE]
Machines are also more precise and can actually things man cannot (like make Intel i7 processors), so it's not only reason "because it's cheaper"
[QUOTE=Fourier;51621632]Cmon, we have drones that get stuff in-front of your house. We have self-driving cars. This time is different, and jobs that you speak of will be needed but will be highly specialized math&engineering stuff. What should people that don't have those skills (and will not want to do it) do?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;51621626]Was a bit of delay on it, many banks now are getting rid of people because computers completely replace them while mainly focusing on internet banking and closing physical banks. From 2007 this country has lost 55000 to 60000 jobs in that sector alone, lost so never coming back. Then you have webshops that completely destroy normals stores.
Meanwhile IT is oversaturated with low skilled workers so those jobs won't move there as the demand is high, for heavily specialized workers with a young age requirement as you're pretty much fucked finding a job above 50 while the pension age is 65 to 67.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51621619]How can unemployment not go up with automation when the very reason automation is sought after is because companies do not have to pay as many people with it?
Yeah sure you need to employ mechanics and engineers to do it but if that brought as many jobs as it removed there would be no point in automating things.
Yeah sure it'll probably happen gradually, but it's certainly not going to get any better.[/QUOTE]
How can most people still have jobs if every single thing doesn't have to be made by hand anymore?
How can many people still have jobs in bureaucracy and accounting if everything doesn't have to be written down on a piece of paper or counted using abacus anymore?
How can most people still have jobs if there factories like [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwkT2zV9H0"]this[/URL]?
Yeah, when handweavers are being replaced by a weaving machines, the number of people required to do the weaving is being reduced, handweavers are losing their jobs and they need to change their occupation (which is going to be difficult for them). These particular people, the weavers, are in a tight spot, but on the long run the job market will adjust. It's been doing it for 200 years. Every single machine that we have invented that can be used in production or services has reduced the number of people required for that particular task and yet the unemployment hasn't reached 90%. How is it different now?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51621513]This argument is as old as first textile weaving machines. So that's around 200 years. The steam engines and increase of machinery thanks to which you didn't have to make every single thing by hand didn't destroy the job market.
Then in 1960s "computers were replacing men" and everyone was supposed to lose their job too. Well that didn't happen either.
Until we make machines that can do their own maintenance, produce themselves, and design new models, you're not going to get the problem you are talking about. And once we do get to this point, the loss of jobs is not going to be a primary concern because we've just created skynet.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that it didn't stop at textile machines, as time goes on more and more jobs are automated, each wave of jobs removed by machines stacking on top of the other.
Just because the human element being phased out hasn't happened entirely yet, or even wont happen entirely ever- doesn't mean we aren't going to reach a point where the number people who need to work grossly exceeds the amount of jobs that need doing.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51621705]The issue is that it didn't stop at textile machines, as time goes on more and more jobs are automated, each wave of jobs removed by machines stacking on top of the other.
Just because the human element being phased out hasn't happened entirely yet, or even wont happen entirely ever- doesn't mean we aren't going to reach a point where the number people who need to work grossly exceeds the amount of jobs that need doing.[/QUOTE]
Okay, some day it's going to happen. And?
You're gonna have to prove we reached this point or your argument might as well be used 200 years ago.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51621702]How can most people still have jobs if every single thing doesn't have to be made by hand anymore?
How can many people still have jobs in bureaucracy and accounting if everything doesn't have to be written down on a piece of paper or counted using abacus anymore?
How can most people still have jobs if there factories like [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwkT2zV9H0"]this[/URL]?
Yeah, when handweavers are being replaced by a weaving machines, the number of people required to do the weaving is being reduced, handweavers are losing their jobs and they need to change their occupation (which is going to be difficult for them). These particular people, the weavers, are in a tight spot, but on the long run the job market will adjust. It's been doing it for 200 years. Every single machine that we have invented that can be used in production or services has reduced the number of people required for that particular task and yet the unemployment hasn't reached 90%. How is it different now?[/QUOTE]
Agree, though it would be nice to put tax on automated machines, and this tax can pay for UBI.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51621702]How can most people still have jobs if every single thing doesn't have to be made by hand anymore?
How can many people still have jobs in bureaucracy and accounting if everything doesn't have to be written down on a piece of paper or counted using abacus anymore?
How can most people still have jobs if there factories like [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwkT2zV9H0"]this[/URL]?
Yeah, when handweavers are being replaced by a weaving machines, the number of people required to do the weaving is being reduced, handweavers are losing their jobs and they need to change their occupation (which is going to be difficult for them). These particular people, the weavers, are in a tight spot, but on the long run the job market will adjust. It's been doing it for 200 years. Every single machine that we have invented that can be used in production or services has reduced the number of people required for that particular task and yet the unemployment hasn't reached 90%. How is it different now?[/QUOTE]
Would propably cause a new rise of artisan jobs when people want to buy something unique and handmade instead of standard industrial goods.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.