Money exists because we live in a world where supply is and will always be limited, and there's plenty of reasons for that from our means of production being limited to the laws of thermodynamics.
Basic income would work within a set environment because there's also a limited number of recipients, for which you can tweak the system. There's a bit more than 66 million people in France, it's a lot more manageable to make basic income for them than for the 1.3 billion living in China, or even the 300 million living in the US.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51682315]Money exists because we live in a world where supply is and will always be limited, and there's plenty of reasons for that from our means of production being limited to the laws of thermodynamics.
Basic income would work within a set environment because there's also a limited number of recipients, for which you can tweak the system. There's a bit more than 66 million people in France, it's a lot more manageable to make basic income for them than for the 1.3 billion living in China, or even the 300 million living in the US.[/QUOTE]
It could work if you got the states on board. 300 million is a hell of a lot more managable when you divide proportionally by 50.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51682330]It could work if you got the states on board. 300 million is a hell of a lot more managable when you divide proportionally by 50.[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with how the US infrastructure works on any deeper level of "shit's got states and taxes and you don't fuck with the IRS" so I can't really comment on that.
Can someone explain how basic income works? Wouldn't the new basic income just have a market value of 0? Since its the new 0.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51682330]It could work if you got the states on board. 300 million is a hell of a lot more managable when you divide proportionally by 50.[/QUOTE]
As well as if you also adjust the basic income by cost of living in each state to reduce the cost of the program.
[QUOTE=download;51682295]Yawn. Another "money isn't real" argument. How original.[/QUOTE]
Gee hey, fuck that guy for trying to explain the concept of money, since you clearly don't understand that as more and more people are put out of work by the advancement of automation (The implication of which is so much further-reaching than textile machinery from the 1800s), they will not have the means (Income) to meet their basic needs. As more of the work that is usually done by people is done by machines, how will people then earn currency with a diminishing number of jobs? What work is there to be done that can't or won't eventually be automated?
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51682632]Gee hey, fuck that guy for trying to explain the concept of money, since you clearly don't understand that as more and more people are put out of work by the advancement of automation (The implication of which is so much further-reaching than textile machinery from the 1800s), they will not have the means (Income) to meet their basic needs. As more of the work that is usually done by people is done by machines, how will people then earn currency with a diminishing number of jobs? What work is there to be done that can't or won't eventually be automated?[/QUOTE]
I'm still baffled by the whole idea people will be able to get job training let alone education without income.
You can't get into a trade school or technical program without thousands of dollars on hand to pay*(in some cases payment plans are offered, but rarely), and there is only so many clerks or other jobs which require basic literacy or arithmetic with only so much demand to fill it. We've reached a point where thanks to technology jobs will not be moving anywhere.
I feel bad for those 5 people who work for Mio.
The transition from now to AI and complete automation is a terrifying prospect in a capitalist society.
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;51682737]The transition from now to AI and complete automation is a terrifying prospect in a capitalist society.[/QUOTE]
well during the first industrial revolution transitioned us out of slavery, so this might be a good thing in the long run
[QUOTE=Judas;51682750]well during the first industrial revolution transitioned us out of slavery, so this might be a good thing in the long run[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I'm sure at the end of it we'll come out with much better living standards for everyone, I'm just talking about the transition.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51682632]Gee hey, fuck that guy for trying to explain the concept of money, since you clearly don't understand that as more and more people are put out of work by the advancement of automation (The implication of which is so much further-reaching than textile machinery from the 1800s), they will not have the means (Income) to meet their basic needs. As more of the work that is usually done by people is done by machines, how will people then earn currency with a diminishing number of jobs? What work is there to be done that can't or won't eventually be automated?[/QUOTE]
Except more and more people aren't being put out of work. Unemployment rates have been stable between 5 and 10% in the US and other Western nations for decades.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
The rest of your argument is also wrong. As automation increases the cost of manufacturing things goes down meaning less money is needed to buy things. The proportion of wages spent on essential goods has gone down year after year.
[QUOTE=download;51681923]Universal income is just a con so people too lazy to get jobs can leach off everyone else. Time and time again people have made dire claims that the march of technology will kill jobs and time and time again they've been wrong. You people claiming increased automation will kill the working class are no better than those Luddite lunatics hundreds of years ago who claimed the same thing. Instead our quality of life go even better as the percentage of the working class has gotten smaller.[/QUOTE]
See many horses pulling people around these days?
[QUOTE=The Aussie;51682810]See many horses pulling people around these days?[/QUOTE]
Oh look, another inane response. How exactly is that relevant?
[QUOTE=download;51682826]Oh look, another inane response. How exactly is that relevant?[/QUOTE]
I bring up horses because they're an excellent example of why we aren't going to have anymore jobs in the future. The horse was a method of transportation for thousands of years, but eventually, with the creation of cars and trains, was completely replaced by an automated service. Objectively better in almost every single way. Looking at the horse gives us a look into our future. Humans will be made redundant. We're being replaced by machines of our own design. We won't be needed. Horses today fulfill a very niche role in our society.
[QUOTE=download;51682770]Except more and more people aren't being put out of work. Unemployment rates have been stable between 5 and 10% in the US and other Western nations for decades.[/QUOTE]
No shit because automation on a large scale is a very recent thing, and it's still in its infancy. You still see trucks driven by drivers, and clerks taking orders. But there will be a time in the near future where these things are done away with, the truck drives itself and your order is given to a computer.
[QUOTE=download;51682770] The rest of your argument is also wrong. As automation increases the cost of manufacturing things goes down meaning less money is needed to buy things. The proportion of wages spent on essential goods has gone down year after year.[/QUOTE]and businesses are prevented from artificially raising prices anyway by... what exactly?
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51682954]and businesses are prevented from raising prices anyway by... what exactly?[/QUOTE]
Competition. This is economics 101.
[QUOTE=download;51682826]Oh look, another inane response. How exactly is that relevant?[/QUOTE]
very relevant actually
I dont like replying with youtube videos, but this video does a damn good job about what is happening, and how its happening.
[video=youtube;7Pq-S557XQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/video]
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;51682956]Competition. This is economics 101.[/QUOTE]
competition doesnt solve everything. look at ISPs for example.
[QUOTE=da space core;51682958]
competition doesnt solve everything. look at ISPs for example.[/QUOTE]
There's also the problem that competition would work to reduce to reduce prices in an actually free market. However, we don't live in anything close to a free market, with protectionist policies changing up a fair bit. The market can't relied upon to keep the costs of things low.
[QUOTE=da space core;51682958]
competition doesnt solve everything. look at ISPs for example.[/QUOTE]
It does actually. The amount of internet for you buck increases every year. If one company inflates the price of a good, then customers just change supplier. ISPs are no different, if you charge to much then your customers move.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Aussie;51682972]There's also the problem that competition would work to reduce to reduce prices in an actually free market. However, we don't live in anything close to a free market, with protectionist policies changing up a fair bit. The market can't relied upon to keep the costs of things low.[/QUOTE]
That's an argument against protectionism.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[url]http://theconversation.com/basic-income-after-automation-thats-not-how-capitalism-works-65023[/url]
[url]http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2016/08/15/basic_income_worst_response_to_automation_111934.html[/url]
Some criticisms of UBI.
As automation becomes more and more commonplace, competition will drive the costs of living down, just as it has for the past centuries, and one doesn't have to look further than the mighty burger to see that. In the middle ages, or as recently as the 1800s, burgers were something that not even kings could have. One could toil in the fields for his entire life and still not be able to afford anything as complex as that. Today, an hour's office job is often enough to pay for two or three of them. It isn't that big of a leap to see how, [I]provided that the market is allowed to work as intended and is not distorted by government intrusion[/I], one might be able to pay for a while month of his life with just a few hours of doing the odd job like babysitting.
But even if every last bit of human labor is abolished, the solution isn't UBI, it's to be smart and buy shares in emerging technologies. With the costs going down, the dividends for even the smallest of shareholders will be enough to support a decent standard of living. All those people decrying capitalism should suck it up, realize that nobody should have to pay for them under threat of imprisonment, and then become capitalists themselves. Society will transition from a society of workers into a society of investors, and anyone who refuses to prepare for that gets no sympathy from me.
[QUOTE=download;51682973] If one company inflates the price of a good, then customers just change supplier. ISPs are no different, if you charge to much then your customers move.[/QUOTE]
You live in Australia and you may not suffer the same issue there, but here in the US, many people are stuck with a single ISP since they have a monopoly in the area. so they get screwed over with data caps, high prices, low speed and reliability, etc.
[QUOTE]That's an argument against protectionism.[/QUOTE]
now while that is true to some extent, there comes a point where companies get so massive that they become, essentially, the only one that matters. there is a lot of more factors that any "economy 101" class can tell you about that affects all this.
look at amazon for example. how do small businesses compete with it? its always going to be cheaper to do stuff online rather than maintaining a whole store with people in it. and now that many smaller department stores are dying, amazon themselves are opening up stores, equipped with cameras and advanced software so people can just walk in, pick up and item, and leave without talking to a single human being. all of it is automated, and in the long run will be cheaper than hiring workers to take care of a store.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;51683011]As automation becomes more and more commonplace, competition will drive the costs of living down, just as it has for the past centuries, and one doesn't have to look further than the mighty burger to see that. In the middle ages, or as recently as the 1800s, burgers were something that not even kings could have. One could toil in the fields for his entire life and still not be able to afford anything as complex as that. Today, an hour's office job is often enough to pay for two or three of them. It isn't that big of a leap to see how, [I]provided that the market is allowed to work as intended and is not distorted by government intrusion[/I], one might be able to pay for a while month of his life with just a few hours of doing the odd job like babysitting.
But even if every last bit of human labor is abolished, the solution isn't UBI, [I]it's to be smart and buy shares in emerging technologies[/I]. With the costs going down, the dividends for even the smallest of shareholders will be enough to support a decent standard of living. All those people decrying capitalism should suck it up, realize that [I]nobody should have to pay for them under threat of imprisonment[/I], and then become capitalists themselves. [I]Society will transition from a society of workers into a society of investors[/I], and anyone who refuses to prepare for that gets no sympathy from me.[/QUOTE]
you cannot on any level compare what happened in the 1800s with the automation of today.
and even then, your "investment based economy" is silly already since today, most of wall street trading, for example, is already done by bots
[QUOTE=Sableye;51681268][I]SOCIALIST!, BINGE SPENDING, ENTITLEMENTS![/I][/QUOTE]
You do know that the cold war is over, right?
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51683025]You do know that the cold war is over, right?[/QUOTE]
Have you listened to any recent rhetoric from the republican party, and many other conservatives in the US? The whole idea of welfare is nearly abhorrent to many people here, and those that receive it are often treated as leeches on society.
It would be very hard to push for any sort of UBI, universal healthcare (single payer system, none of this insurance market place stuff), or other government benefits in the US.
[QUOTE=download;51681923]Universal income is just a con so people too lazy to get jobs can leach off everyone else. [/QUOTE]
What's your profession currently?
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;51683011]As automation becomes more and more commonplace, competition will drive the costs of living down, just as it has for the past centuries, and one doesn't have to look further than the mighty burger to see that. In the middle ages, or as recently as the 1800s, burgers were something that not even kings could have. One could toil in the fields for his entire life and still not be able to afford anything as complex as that. Today, an hour's office job is often enough to pay for two or three of them. It isn't that big of a leap to see how, [I]provided that the market is allowed to work as intended and is not distorted by government intrusion[/I], one might be able to pay for a while month of his life with just a few hours of doing the odd job like babysitting.
But even if every last bit of human labor is abolished, the solution isn't UBI, it's to be smart and buy shares in emerging technologies. With the costs going down, the dividends for even the smallest of shareholders will be enough to support a decent standard of living. All those people decrying capitalism should suck it up, realize that nobody should have to pay for them under threat of imprisonment, and then become capitalists themselves. Society will transition from a society of workers into a society of investors, and anyone who refuses to prepare for that gets no sympathy from me.[/QUOTE]you want to populate the planet with investors? do you live on the damn Wall Street? we have a world of over 7 bn people, millions of whom don't give a shit about fancy stocks and shares because their life is daily struggle and drudgery. do you want all the lower-class people who come from simpler lives to just starve and drop dead?
what if the global resources finally run out, what if the systems crash, what if there's sabotage, what if the automated systems break down, what if this fancy perfect society of paper and data comes under the threat of an actual physical problem that can't be tackled with a simple application of bureaucratic magic?
seriously explain this whole thing to me, in detail that my filthy peasant brain can understand.
[QUOTE=download;51682973]It does actually. The amount of internet for you buck increases every year. If one company inflates the price of a good, then customers just change supplier. ISPs are no different, if you charge to much then your customers move.[/QUOTE]
And then when a competitor, say Google, comes in with something better than what those ISP's can offer they bith at the government.
And even then, there isn't much that the customers can do in the case of ISP's, since they tend to have monopolies several places
[QUOTE=download;51682075]I think you misunderstand what Luddite were. They didn't destroy farm equipment, they destroyed textile equipment and other industrialisation.
The number of people required to manufacture things has continuously gone down while the middle class has grown. I don't see any reason for this trend not to continue.
[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-27/is-universal-basic-income-dangerous-idea-of-2016/8149398]This[/url] Discusses the very serious issues with UBI. Money doesn't grow on trees.[/QUOTE]
[I]derogatory[/I]
a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.
Thanks Google!
[QUOTE=download;51682770]Except more and more people aren't being put out of work. Unemployment rates have been stable between 5 and 10% in the US and other Western nations for decades.[/QUOTE]
a lot of people aged about 12 - 30 used to be employed in various businesses and now happen to be students these days, also unemployment rates usually don't count people who stopped looking for work
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.