CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[usmbguest5318]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

Excellent discussion. TY for sharing.

OT:
That is the general type and nature of discussions I hoped would transpire on USMB. I'd heard that it wasn't the nature of USMB conversation, but I was optimistic that what I'd heard was mistaken.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

 

[Dekster]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

 

[Mac1958]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

it doesn't work and you want to take it away

??? Well if it shows itself truly not to be working relative to the quantitative targets and methodology that define what will constitute "working" at some agreed upon point in the future when the assessment of whether it's working is to be made, taking it away or modifying it shouldn't be a problem. Might some people "raise Cain" about it? Yes, and their objections should be ignored.

 

[Mac1958]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

it doesn't work and you want to take it away

??? Well if it shows itself truly not to be working relative to the quantitative targets and methodology that define what will constitute "working" at some agreed upon point in the future when the assessment of whether it's working is to be made, taking it away or modifying it shouldn't be a problem. Might some people "raise Cain" about it? Yes, and their objections should be ignored.

Oh, I think instituting a Universal Income and then stopping would be worse than not instituting it at all.

If we're going to go that route, and I'm open to anything, we'd better be damn sure that productivity is where it needs to be to support it.
.

 

[Tehon]

Well if it shows itself truly not to be working relative to the quantitative targets and methodology that define what will constitute "working" at some agreed upon point in the future when the assessment of whether it's working is to be made, taking it away or modifying it shouldn't be a problem. Might some people "raise Cain" about it? Yes, and their objections should be ignored.

Need I say anymore?

Marx knew the time would come when the capitalist method of production would become a hindrance to the evolution of society. You can either try to understand what he was saying or continue along a path of enslavement to the capitalist class, dependent on their charity in the form of a basic income.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

it doesn't work and you want to take it away

??? Well if it shows itself truly not to be working relative to the quantitative targets and methodology that define what will constitute "working" at some agreed upon point in the future when the assessment of whether it's working is to be made, taking it away or modifying it shouldn't be a problem. Might some people "raise Cain" about it? Yes, and their objections should be ignored.

Oh, I think instituting a Universal Income and then stopping would be worse than not instituting it at all.

If we're going to go that route, and I'm open to anything, we'd better be damn sure that productivity is where it needs to be to support it.
.

I think instituting a Universal Income and then stopping would be worse than not instituting it at all.

I not of that mind for several reasons:

• The details of how the UBI would be implemented are, presently, highly indeterminate. For now all it is is a concept; thus, for now, I'm amenable to the notion of attempting to implement the concept, but depending on the specifics, that could change.
• I believe that if one implements something as "new and different" as UBI, one's obliged also to lay out very clear and measurable terms of what be the goal, means and modes of what such a policy/tactic are expected to achieve. I believe too that most people are reasonable enough that if they acquiesce up front to the terms, they'll be okay with it if it be that the idea isn't working as projected.
  
  What people aren't okay with is uncertainty. What that means is that among the terms must also be a set of guidelines for how the rescinding of the UBI would happen and what people will be expected to do if/when that happens. Thus, for me, implementing a UBI and related provisions that provide for its termination is a matter of aptly handling change, not whether one can do it or not do it. One, we as a nation, can do pretty nearly anything that we can conceive of doing. What one cannot very well do is take folks by surprise; sure, it's possible to surprise them, but one won't like the consequences of having done so, and with something having the nature of a UBI, neither will the people whom one surprises, yet they'll still "act out" irrationally in response to being surprised. (I can't explain why people do that, but I know that they do, which is why I usually make a strong effort at refraining from being a source of uncertainty.)

If we're going to go that route, and I'm open to anything, we'd better be damn sure that productivity is where it needs to be to support it.

Well, I basically agree with that practical imperative. I'm not certain that the entirety of support needs to come from productivity, but the notion that we must have the means to afford implementing a UBI is one with which I concur.

 

[task0778]

How much money will be given to how many people and where is that much money going to come from? I have yet to see a clear and honest proposal that has the slightest chance of success; as is always the case, those who want it will vastly overstate the revenue and even more vastly understate the cost. IOW, it ain't fiscally feasible.

 

[Dekster]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

If you give everybody say $18K a year in guaranteed income, the price of everything would just go up as everybody sought out their share of all those extra $18K in income and the poor would still be dirt poor.

 

[fncceo]

Income inequality is a huge issue.

More important is attractiveness inequality.

How is it fair that some people get to look like this...

While others are forced to look like this?

Something MUST be done to close this gap.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

If you give everybody say $18K a year in guaranteed income, the price of everything would just go up as everybody sought out their share of all those extra $18K in income and the poor would still be dirt poor.

Say what? If one gives everyone $18K/year in guaranteed income, everyone already has their share of it, namely the $18K they were given.

EDIT:

FWIW, prices will go up regardless of whether one gives everyone any amount of UBI.

Everything goes "retro" except prices.
-- Chris Jami​

 

[JoeMoma]

Income inequality is a huge issue.

More important is attractiveness inequality.

How is it fair that some people get to look like this...

While others are forced to look like this?

Something MUST be done to close this gap.

Problem is that it's much easier to take attractive down to ugly than it is to turn ugly into attractive.

 

[fncceo]

Problem is that it's much easier to take attractive down to ugly than it is to turn ugly into attractive.

That would seem to be the case with income inequality as well ...

 

[JimBowie1958]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Income inequality is a huge issue.

More important is attractiveness inequality.

How is it fair that some people get to look like this...

While others are forced to look like this?

Something MUST be done to close this gap.

Yeah, I often have that problem as well.

 

[Mac1958]

Income inequality is a huge issue.

More important is attractiveness inequality.

How is it fair that some people get to look like this...

While others are forced to look like this?

Something MUST be done to close this gap.

Yeah, I often have that problem as well.

View attachment 159032

Looking good Jim, that gym time is really paying off!


.

 

[martybegan]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

Excellent discussion. TY for sharing.

OT:
That is the general type and nature of discussions I hoped would transpire on USMB. I'd heard that it wasn't the nature of USMB conversation, but I was optimistic that what I'd heard was mistaken.

It's the CDZ, where we remove our blood soaked galoshes and fighting claws and put on a nice top hat and monocle.

 

[martybegan]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

because some people are different than others, and most people need something tangible in return for their labor, time, or capital.

And with Priests and Nuns their basic needs are met via the voluntary giving of their sponsors, not the forceful taking of worth that a universal income would require.