CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[jillian]

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."

is anyone seriously talking about "universal income"?

 

[Mac1958]

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."

is anyone seriously talking about "universal income"?

Very few.
.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is only horrible under socialism, not capitalism.

Only the right wing prefers socialism on a national basis while decrying a dearth of free market capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Solving simple poverty should solve many money related problems. That should help people be more social.

 

[danielpalos]

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.
.

How does, "ensuring full employment of capital resources", not work in any given hypothetical?

 

[Mac1958]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Yes, adding some form of community service would be a nice condition, but would you agree that UBI should also replace all other forms of government pay outs?

Community service would be a good idea, and sure as hell, helpful.

Clearly the root of the issue is technology and productivity. Technology is accomplishing precisely what we wanted it to, but we really weren't thinking about the long-term effects of demand for lower-skilled positions. Hell, at some point, tech will start working its way up THAT food chain, TOO, by the way.

This seems like a reasonable conversation to start ASAP. The problem is - and we see it on this thread - shallow partisan politics will pollute the conversation from the very beginning. Once something becomes politicized, people start screaming, no one is listening, and everything gets dumbed down to its lowest possible level.
.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

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.
.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

One proposal, is to simplify our current regime of unemployment compensation into a general tax for unemployment compensation funding.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work until their attitudes improve and we can honestly call women, honey bunches of O's.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

 

[danielpalos]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

We need more, means of production, not socializing existing means; Hoover Dam is always, hard at work for us.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

So who gets to live in the slums?

Only Persons who prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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."

So who gets to live in the slums?

Only Persons who prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

What if I want a 12,000 sq ft mansion like that other guy a few blocks away?

 

[danielpalos]

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."

So who gets to live in the slums?

Only Persons who prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

What if I want a 12,000 sq ft mansion like that other guy a few blocks away?

Ask if they can adopt you; Next.

 

[boedicca]

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.

It is only horrible under socialism, not capitalism.

Only the right wing prefers socialism on a national basis while decrying a dearth of free market capitalism.

You are very confused.

 

[boedicca]

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?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is only horrible under socialism, not capitalism.

Only the right wing prefers socialism on a national basis while decrying a dearth of free market capitalism.

You are very confused.

Are you on the right wing?

Only the right wing prefers socialism on a national basis while decrying a dearth of free market capitalism.

Why do you believe solving simple poverty under any form of Capitalism is Bad and not Good, for our economy?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

You used to be more left wing.

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why,

Only the Religious can make, "communism work".